JALT Task-Based Language Teaching Special Interest Group

Proceedings of the TBLT in Asia
2018 Conference

Ryukoku University, Kyoto, Japan
June 23-24, 2018

Published 2019by JALT Task-Based Language Teaching SIG
www.tblsig.org
Ó 2019 JALT TBLT SIG
All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-4-901352-56-7

2

CONTENTS
Pg. 4. Editorial
Pg. 5. Chapter 1: Applying TBLT with young learners: Implementing series of linked tasks in akindergarten class by Abram Leon (Temple University, Japan Campus)
Pg. 16. Chapter 2: Low-proficiency university students’ perceptions of pretask planning and theirmonologue task performances by Chie Ogawa (Temple University, Japan Campus)
Pg. 26. Chapter 3: L2 writing development in intermediate college-level Japanese-as-a-foreign-language
classrooms by Tatsushi Fukunaga (Purdue University, USA)Pg. 38. Chapter 4: Authentic application of TBLT in Japan by Jenny Numadate (Ibaraki Christian
University, Japan)
Pg. 47. Chapter 5: Bridging the gap between teacher and student perspectives of TBLT in the Japanese
EFL classroom by Shizuka Brooks (Temple University, Japan Campus)
Pg. 59. Chapter 6: Physical games as language tasks: One game’s effect on language production andstudents’ perceptions by Sya’baningrum Prihhartini (Universitas Islam ’45, Indonesia)
Pg. 71. Chapter 7: The effects of different learning conditions on vocabulary knowledge by Mutsumi
Kawakami (Tokyo Denki University, Japan)
Pg. 88. Chapter 8: Task-based English curriculum innovation for computer science majors in Japan:
Preliminary report by Emiko Kaneko (University of Aizu, Japan) et al.
Pg. 102. Chapter 9: Task-Based Language Teaching at the Maritime Education and Training Institute inIndonesia by Irmi Agustina (Queen’s University Belfast, UK)
Pg. 113. Chapter 10: Critical perspective on language learning: TBLT and digital games by Anton Vegel(Kent State University, USA)Pg. 125. Editorial board, SIG information

3

EDITORIAL
It gives me great pleasure to introduce the Proceedings of the TBLT in Asia 2018 Conference. Here, we
present 10 peer-reviewed chapters from the TBLT in Asia 2018 Conference held at Ryukoku University in
Kyoto, Japan on June 23-24, 2018. The conference featured two plenary speakers: Natsuko Shintani,
who specializes in TBLT with young learners, and Hayo Reinders, who is an expert on technology and inparticular digital games in SLA. Especially given these plenary speakers’ expertise, this year, we had anumber of presentations on TBLT and young learners as well as digital games. In the current
proceedings, we see two examples of such papers (i.e., Chapters 1 and 10).
Chapter 1 by Abram Leon (Temple University, Japan Campus) carefully describes input-based andinteractive tasks designed for young learners, as a way of encouraging language teachers who work withthis learner population to adapt the task-based approach. Chapter 10 by Anton Vegel (Kent State
University), on the other hand, tackles the topic of digital games in language learning and suggests how
SLA theories, that provide a backdrop to TBLT, and Digital Game-Based Learning are compatible witheach other. The rest of the papers range in topics from curriculum, syllabus, and task design, tovocabulary learning, to task repetition, to teachers’ and learners’ perspectives on tasks and task
implementations. Chapters 1, 4, and 8 give concrete examples of how tasks or TBLT more generally canbe integrated into English courses/programs in Japan, for different age groups, while Chapters 2, 3, 5, 6,
and 7 are more research-oriented and provide critical insights into how we might utilize tasks to theirbest potential in English- or Japanese-as-a-foreign-language classrooms. Finally, Chapters 9 and 10
thoroughly review the related literature and make a good case that TBLT is a good approach to take inteaching English for Specific Purposes and that integrating Game-Based Learning principles into TBLT isrecommended.
Last, but not least, I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to Kurtis McDonald, the Assistant Editor,
and the four reviewers (see p. 125) for their effort and expertise to help ensure the quality of theproceedings.
We hope you enjoy reading the contributions to this volume, and see you at our next biennial TBLT in
Asia conference in 2020!
Shoko Sasayama, Editor in Chief
February 20194

Chapter 1
Applying TBLT With Young Learners:
Implementing Series of Linked Tasks in a Kindergarten Class
Abram Leon
(Temple University, Japan Campus)
Abstract
Recent years have seen an increase in studies investigating the implementation of Task-Based Language
Teaching with young learners; in addition to literature demonstrating that productive tasks can be usedsuccessfully with young learners, work by Shintani (2016) has demonstrated the viability of input-basedtasks as an effective mode of instruction for young beginners. However, despite such promisingresearch, teachers still struggle to integrate TBLT methods with very young learners, where traditional
teaching approaches and set curricula often prevail. This paper aims to provide practical aid to teachersinterested in implementing tasks with young learners by: (a) describing how sequences of linked tasks
can be designed to provide learners with language resources, and then push them to use their own
resources productively; (b) demonstrating how task-based methods can be integrated with existing
curricula for young learners, by describing tasks that I have implemented in an immersion class at aJapanese kindergarten. Sequences begin with receptive tasks and move toward productive andinteractive tasks, taking advantage of the benefits of task repetition (Pinter, 2005; Shintani, 2012), butalso pushing learners to communicate in progressively more demanding ways, thus providing scaffolding
for more complex interactive tasks. To demonstrate how tasks can provide a meaningful context andopportunities for interaction between young learners, I outline a series of tasks that I have developed
for a unit on foods.
Keywords: classroom interaction; input-based tasks; Task-Based Language Teaching; task repetition;
young learners
As research into task-based language teaching (TBLT) increases, there are a growing number ofstudies investigating tasks for young learners; tasks have been shown to have a wide variety of benefits
for learners of various ages and language backgrounds (Pinter, 2005; Shintani, 2012, 2014, 2016).
However, in spite of promising results, teachers may still have difficulty integrating tasks with young
learners in the foreign language classroom for a variety of reasons. The questions of how to selectcontent, and how to grade, sequence, and integrate tasks into a cohesive syllabus remains an area ofdifficulty (Ellis, 2003; Nunan, 2004). As well, teachers implementing tasks may be pressed to justify theuse of class time for task repetition. In this paper, I aim to provide practical aid to teachers by reviewing
the evidence that TBLT is effective with young learners, and outlining rationale for integrating tasks with
content areas in a kindergarten immersion setting. I then identify useful frameworks for designing task
sequences that help scaffold learner performance and take advantage of the benefits of task repetition.
After briefly reviewing the literature relating to TBLT with young learners, I introduce theteaching context, and discuss the process of designing task sequences that are appropriate andmotivating for young learners. Finally, a sequence of tasks is examined in detail in order to provide
practical examples to teachers who hope to implement task-based methods in their classes.

5Literature Review
This section briefly reviews evidence supporting the use of tasks with young learners. While acomprehensive review of the literature is beyond the scope of this paper, some key concepts andresearch findings are presented, and considerations for adapting task-based methods for children are
examined.
In this paper, I follow Ellis (2003) and Shintani (2016) in defining ‘task’ as involving (a) primary
focus on meaning; (b) an information or opinion gap; (c) learners use of their own linguistic resources tocomplete the task; (d) a clearly defined outcome other than the display of language. In contrast, theword ‘activity’ is used more broadly to refer to a wide range of teaching techniques that do notnecessarily incorporate all of the criteria listed above. Examples of ‘activities’ include storytelling,
chanting, singing, and role-play, as outlined by Peck (2001).
While there is a place for various activity types in child language instruction, the goal-oriented
nature of tasks can be particularly motivating for young learners. As described by Ellis (2013), tasks“engage learners in using language pragmatically rather than displaying language” (p. 9). This is an
important distinction for young learners, who likely see language as a tool for accomplishing something,
not an object to be studied. By definition, TBLT involves children in working with a second language (L2)to accomplish a purpose, much in the same way that they naturally utilize their first language (L1).
Research by Muñoz (2006) found that younger learners performed better in measures of implicit
learning, while older learners were better able to take advantage of explicit teaching methods due tohigher levels of cognitive development. This finding suggests that young learners benefit from ample
opportunities for implicit learning (as in meaning-focused tasks), and are less likely to benefit fromexplicit teaching as in present-practice-produce (PPP) methods, which focus on language as an object tobe learned.
For implicit learning to occur, learners need sufficient exposure to the language; in this regard,
task repetition may play an important role. Nation (2013) emphased the importance of repeatedincidental exposure for vocabulary learning. Such exposure can be provided to young learners throughrepetition of input-based tasks, as described by Shintani (2012, 2014, 2016). Task repetition has beenshown to have a number of positive effects for children. In her study, Shintani (2012) found that each
repetition of a task led to different in-class activity, as the teacher progressively pushed learners tonegotiate meaning and use the L2 during interaction. As a result, over the course of nine repetitions, sheobserved consistently high levels of learner enjoyment and motivation. These findings are consistent
with other studies which have shown that repeating tasks with children leads to higher engagement,
confidence, and smoother interactions (Pinter, 2005).
Shintani’s (2016) study included a comparison of TBLT and PPP methods; in post-tests the TBLT
group outperformed the PPP group in vocabulary learning and incidental acquisition of plural morpheme“–s,” showing that TBLT is a viable method for young learners. The comparison also revealed starkdifferences in the quality of interaction between the two methods. The PPP setting largely favored a rigid
turn-taking style characterized by IRF (Initiation-Response-Feedback) exchanges in which the teacher
dominated the interaction. In contrast, the TBLT setting had a more naturalistic turn-taking style, inwhich learners were pushed to initiate exchanges in order to negotiate meaning. Although the task did
not require learners to speak, it appears that TBLT offered students more incentive to use language
productively. Learners were thus able to engage in meaning-focused output, as described by Nation and
Newton (2009), and might have experienced the benefits that output is theorized to have on language
acquisition (Swain, 2005).
Ellis’s (2013) response to common criticisms of TBLT offers a useful review of the theoreticalsupport for using tasks with children. Seedhouse (1999), claimed that tasks lead to impoverished or6

pidginized language use; Ellis countered by asserting that using single words and formulaic chunks isnatural and typical in beginner language. With regard to young learners, grammatical knowledge should
be expected to develop slowly, and inaccurate attempts to use the L2 should be viewed positively as partof the learning process. Another criticism of TBLT is that it relies too heavily on group work, thus limiting
the role of the teacher. Ellis responded by emphasizing the benefits of group work, and also pointing outthat tasks can be teacher centered. For young learners, this is an important point, since the teacher playsa pivotal role in helping to navigate and scaffold interactions, as described by Shintani (2014).
Negotiation for meaning (NfM) is a well-researched concept in the field which is theorized tocontribute to language learning (Ellis, 2003; Nation, 2013; Nunan, 2004). However, some researchfindings indicate that NfM may function differently with young children as opposed to adults. Patterson,
O’Brien, Kister, Carter, and Kotsonis (1981) found that first-year elementary school students had trouble
monitoring their own comprehension, and thus sometimes failed to signal when they had notunderstood a message. As well, Ellis and Heimbach (1997) reported that young children negotiated withthe teacher more frequently in groups than in one-on-one interactions. As described in detail by Shintani(2014, 2016), groups of young beginner learners have been shown to negotiate meaning extensively if
encouraged to do so. Children often use their L1 to negotiate meaning initially; when instituting TBLT
with children, teachers should not ban the L1 completely, but rather accept that a transition to L2 will
occur gradually over time and through task repetition (Pinter, 2005; Shintani, 2012; Willis, 1996).
Teaching Context
The tasks presented in this paper have been instituted in an English partial immersion programat a private Japanese kindergarten. While most classrooms at the kindergarten are instructed inJapanese, immersion classes have an English-speaking homeroom teacher in addition to a Japaneseteacher. The definition of ‘immersion’ used in the program requires that English be the language of
instruction at least 50% of the time. Immersion teachers regularly accompany their class in daily
activities such as lunch or recess, and on field trips outside of the school. Immersion classes areequipped with iPads and televisions, and teachers have access to various English language children’sbooks and resources for making instruction materials.
The third-year immersion class in which the tasks have been introduced consists of 28 five- andsix-year-olds who share Japanese as their L1. Students have been in the immersion program since three
years of age, and thus already have significant listening comprehension and speaking abilities in English.
In order to provide more individualized attention during English lessons, it is common to split learners
into two groups of 14 students, with English- and Japanese-medium instruction conducted in different
rooms. The institution requires that an ‘English only’ rule be enforced during lessons, which forces
learners to avoid use of their L1.
In addition to the immersion classes, the kindergarten also offers weekly after-school language
classes to first- to third-grade elementary school students who are graduates of the program. The classes
are conducted for one hour per week with six to ten learners per class, and aim to help learners maintainthe English ability that they gained while enrolled in the immersion program. The task sequence outlinedin the latter half of this paper has been implemented in these after-school classes as well as in thekindergarten immersion setting.
Designing Task Sequences
In this section I describe how tasks have been implemented with the young learners in thissetting, paying particular attention to the issue of task sequencing. I consider the issue of integrating
content into a cohesive syllabus, and then examine task sequencing at the level of unit and lesson.
7Integrating Tasks with Syllabus Content
As reviewed earlier in this paper, young learners tend to see language as a tool forcommunicating, and gain language ability concurrently with other cognitive skills. Young learners
develop in their L1 naturally while focusing primarily on meaning as they interact with the environmentand community that surrounds them; the principle argument for using content-based instruction (CBI) isthat young learners can do the same when learning an L2 (Snow, 2001). For children to make use of
their natural strengths, language instruction should include a balanced focus on content, skills, andmotivation. In addition to tasks, activities such as songs, reading/listening to stories, and action games
are appropriate for learners in both L1 and L2 learning (Peck, 2001; Willis, 1996). As Nunan (2004) points
out, CBI and TBLT share underlying principles, and course content can play a role in organizing a taskbased syllabus into themes and experiences.
In my teaching context, the kindergarten’s curriculum of yearly events serves as a useful guide in
selecting content areas; class excursions, school festivals, and other annual school events provide
children with opportunities for rich experiential learning. A task sequence based on an annual trip to an
aquarium, for example, involves readings and songs about the ocean, videos about marine life, and tasks
in which learners name and describe sea animals. During the actual visit, learners are encouraged tocommunicate in the L2 about what they see, thus drawing on their linguistic resources creatively, as
described by Nation (2013). After the visit, learners make drawings based on their experience anddescribe them to the class. By incorporating content and authentic experiences into a task-based
syllabus, learners are given repeated exposure to language, as well as opportunities and motivation touse language meaningfully. Exposure, use, and motivation are the conditions that Willis (1996) identified
as essential for language learning; the next section makes use of her framework as a guideline forsequencing tasks to maximize learning across units.
Sequencing Tasks: Adapting the Task Cycle for Young Learners
Willis (1996) takes up the topic of sequencing in her task-based learning framework, and makes
recommendations for implementing tasks with young learners. She proposes a longer pre-task phase,including ample comprehensible input via teacher talk, and a clear introduction and demonstration oftasks to reduce learner anxiety and generate excitement. Learners then take part in cycles of short task
sequences, with less emphasis placed on the planning, report, and language focus phases. The
framework’s organization is in line with the commonly accepted notion that learners should not be
asked to produce language to which they have not yet been exposed.
Task sequencing can also be described in terms of cognitive load. Nunan (2004) describes a“psycholinguistic processing approach” (p. 125) in which tasks are undertaken in the order ofcomprehension to production to interaction, thus gradually increasing cognitive demands on thelearner. When examining task difficulty, Ellis’s (2003) description of criteria for grading tasks is a useful
resource (p. 228). By manipulating factors relating to input, conditions, processes, and outcomes, avariety of adjustments can be made to aid young learners. These ideas have been incorporated in thedesign of the tasks presented in the following section.
Examining a Task Sequence in Detail: A Unit on Foods and Money
In this section I provide in-depth examples of sequences of linked tasks which I have designed
and implemented in the kindergarten and after school program. The tasks are based on a unit on foods
and money, with an interactive shopping task as the main task in the sequence. The aim is to outline avariety of instruction options which can be combined and linked within and across repeated lessons,8beginning with pre-task activities and moving to input-based tasks, the main task, and language focus
activities (see Appendix A).
Pre-Task Activities
In line with Willis (1996), the pre-task activities discussed here aim to engage children in waysthat require less linguistic competence, while introducing the topic and activating schemata. At first, it isuseful to use videos or pictures as support to engage learners in talk related to the topic. Through thisinteraction, the teacher can gauge learners’ likes, habits, and knowledge of the topic. Stories and songs
related to the topic are excellent pre-task activities since they provide meaning-focused input andopportunities for output when repeated across lessons. See Allen-Tamai (2013) for ideas on joint
storytelling activities for young learners, and Peck (2001) for further ideas about using songs and chantswith young learners. Input-based activities involving movement can also provide a context for meaningfocused input while keeping young learners engaged. A video recording modeling the main task can also
help to clarify goals and build learners’ excitement. See Willis (1996, pp. 86–99) for a discussion ofhandling recordings.
Input-Based Tasks
Input-based tasks provide learners with linguistic resources and skills which will later be
expanded on in the main task phase. Tasks can be implemented in various ways to provide scaffolding
for learners. For example, input can be provided in pictorial form at first to aid comprehension, andlearners can support each other by working in groups. Once learners become familiar with the task
through repetition, the teacher can push learners by speaking more quickly to promote thedevelopment of fluent comprehension skills.
‘Counting money’ is a listen-and-do task in which learners must select the correct amount frombags of toy money. After learners have chosen their amount, the teacher can lead the class in counting
together to check answers, thus encouraging attention to form while maintaining primary focus on
meaning. The teacher can remind learners of the importance of the task by emphasizing that catching
the price correctly is an important skill when shopping in real life. The input can be presented in theform of a dialogue, in which learners must identify the key information (e.g., “How much is that hot
dog?” “It’s 300 yen”).
‘How much is it?’ can be implemented as a matching task, or as a more complex reasoning orordering task. While looking at a set of food cards, learners first simply hold up the food that the teacher
names or describes. Next, learners refer to a list of foods with accompanying prices, and hold up thecorrect card after listening to the price, thus integrating listening and reading skills. For more advanced
students, the opposite can be done; the teacher reads off a list of foods to buy (e.g., “I want bananas,
donuts, and eggs”) and the learners calculate and report the total price. This integrates listening,reading, and mathematic reasoning skills. Learners can also be asked to arrange the foods in order of
price. These tasks help learners to blend skills, as recommended by Brown and Lee (2015).
The ‘delivery’ task involves setting up several tables with pictures of shops (e.g., 100-yen shop,
convenience store, and supermarket), and giving learners sets of picture cards. Learners must identify
the correct cards and deliver them to a shop as per the teacher’s directions. Directions may be simple(e.g., “Take the broccoli to the convenience store”), or more complex, involving multiple items anddelivery locations. This task is modeled after the listen-and-do task described by Shintani (2016), but it
differs from her task in that it also requires attention to a number of different delivery locations, andphysical movement around the room. As in Shintani’s task, the teacher can adjust the type and quality9

of input in order to push students to negotiate for meaning. After several repetitions, students can play
the teacher’s role.
Task Cycle: Main Task Sequence
Teachers may want to focus on pre-task activities and input-based tasks over several classperiods, in order to provide learners with the linguistic resources necessary for interactive tasks. In
designing an interactive task for young learners, it is important to set clear goals and examine various
options for input, conditions, and procedures by applying a framework such as Ellis’s (2003, p. 21). Thesevariables have an impact on the task’s cognitive complexity, and young learners should begin with easiertasks to ensure success and motivation.
‘Let’s go shopping’ is an interactive role-play task. It can easily follow the ‘delivery’ task
described above, as it uses the same classroom layout, with learners stationed at tables that serve as‘shops.’ Shoppers use their shopping list and money to buy items from shop clerks (see Appendix B for
sample materials). As a post-task, shoppers and shop keepers briefly report their results by counting theamount of money or items that they have obtained.
Reducing cognitive load helps learners to be successful, especially on the first attempt at thetask. As such, it is important to provide a clear demonstration and explanation of what constitutes a
successful outcome. Learners also benefit from planning time, during which shoppers can ask for help
reading their lists, and clerks can arrange their food items. During the first repetition, the teacher canset pricing rules (e.g., each item is 100 yen) and use simplified shopping list sets. The task will be easier if
there are many copies of each food card, and shopping lists all have combinations of the same eight toten items, ensuring that all learners are exposed to a manageable number of new words (see Appendix
B).
In later repetitions, complexity can be introduced by adding longer shopping lists and more
items. Rare items, with only one or two copies, can add an element of excitement and time pressure,since shoppers will need to work fast to make sure their item is still available. For common items,
learners can be taught how to shop strategically, and check several shops to find the lowest price. With
some coaching, learners will begin to use communication strategies such as negotiating, leading to more
complex exchanges. In my experience teaching third-year elementary school students in the after-school
program, older children can handle different denominations of money and practice giving correctchange, thus adding an element of mathematic reasoning. Learners can write their own shopping lists as
a post-task activity for use in subsequent repetitions; this serves to integrate writing skills, and also
increases learners’ agency by allowing them to shop for their favorite items.
Language Focus
Willis (1996) includes language focus as the last phase of her TBLT framework, but when
repeating task sequences, a focus on language can also be considered as a pre-task done before
repeating a familiar task. For children, rather than focusing explicitly on language as an object, chances
to notice language form should be integrated into tasks in a meaningful way. Effective language focus
activities might integrate reading or writing skills to draw young learners to process written forms, orpresent model interactions via video in order to raise awareness of useful phrases.
One interesting option for using video is to record a point-of-view perspective of the task
interaction. The video can be played for learners in the pre-task to provide a model of usefulcommunication strategies. This is particularly useful if learners have a tendency to conduct theinteraction in a ‘scripted’ way; the teacher can pause the video at key points to have learners predict
what will happen next, and then surprise learners by revealing a novel strategy for negotiating the10interaction. Another use of video/audio recordings can be as receptive information transfer activities(Nation, 2013, p. 165), in which learners must identify the main information such as food item and price(see Appendix C). These activities encourage learners to focus on form while also modelling different
communication strategies such as confirmation checks and negotiation. Willis’s (1996) guidelines forusing recordings in the task cycle are still relevant, and thanks to modern technology, recordings can beprepared quickly and easily.
Conclusion
The main aim of this paper has been to provide teachers with examples of tasks that can besequenced and repeated, allowing for many variations on a carefully designed main task. Input-basedtasks provide language resources and skills which are later folded into the interactive task, thus allowing
learners to take advantage of the benefits of task repetition. The task sequences provide opportunities
to integrate the four skills, and interact in ways that are authentic and related to real-world languageuse. The tasks involve young learners in using language as a tool to achieve a clear outcome, andincrementally increasing complexity in the task provides a communicative context for introducing new
language items, grammatical patterns, and communication strategies.
While devising and implementing these tasks with learners, I have had a chance to reflect on theimportance of repeatedly evaluating the activity which is generated from tasks (Ellis, 2003, pp. 185–
187). When devising a work plan, I have often relied on personal experiences to decide how to conduct
activities, and taken note of areas that present difficulties for students. However, when attempting atask for the first time, one is only able to attend to so many learners; I feel that multiple chances toobserve the activity resulting from task repetition can help teachers to develop professionally over time.
Based on these experiences, and in light of research findings on students’ learning and confidence(Pinter, 2005), I support Shintani’s (2014) assertion that “teachers of young learners need not be wary of
repeating tasks” (p. 292).
I conclude by reflecting on an issue which is impossible to avoid with young learners: classroom
behavior. Ellis (2003) comments that students should take tasks seriously as a learning activity (p. 270).
This is an important point, but it must be noted that children are likely to conceive of interactive tasks asgames. Contrary to being problematic, this orientation can have a profoundly positive effect on student
motivation and participation; in some cases, interactive tasks are the only way to engage certain
learners. It is important to strike a balance, so that children take tasks seriously, but also see them as asource of enjoyment.
References
Allen-Tamai, M. (2013). Story trees. Tokyo: Shougakkan Shueisha Production.
Brown, H. D., & Lee, H. (2015). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy(4th ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2013). Task based language teaching: Responding to the critics. University of Sydney Papers in
TESOL, 8, 1–27.
Ellis, R., & Heimbach, R. (1997). Bugs and birds: Children’s acquisition of second language vocabulary
through interaction. System, 25, 247–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(97)00012-2
Muñoz, C. (2006). The affects of age on foreign language learning: The BAF project. In C. Muñoz (Ed.),Age and the rate of foreign language learning (pp. 1–40). Clevedon, England: Multilingual
Matters.
Nation, I. S. P. (2013). Learning vocabulary in another language (2nd ed.). Cambridge, England:11Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139858656
Nation, I. S. P., & Newton, J. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL listening and speaking. New York, NY: Routledge.
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667336
Patterson, C. J., O’Brien, C., Kister, M. C., Carter, D. B., & Kotsonis, M. E. (1981). Development ofcomprehension monitoring as a function of context. Developmental Psychology, 17, 379–389.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.17.4.379
Peck, S. (2001). Developing children’s listening and speaking in ESL. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching
English as a second language or foreign language (pp. 139–149). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Pinter, A. (2005). Task repetition with 10-year-old children. In C. Edwards & J. Willis (Eds.), Teachers
exploring tasks in English language teaching (pp. 113–126). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave
Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230522961_11
Seedhouse, P. (1999). Task-based interaction. ELT Journal, 53, 149–156.
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/53.3.149
Shintani, N. (2012). Repeating input-based tasks with young beginner learners. RELC Journal, 43, 39–51.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688212439322
Shintani, N. (2014). Using tasks with young beginner learners: the role of the teacher. Innovation in
Language Learning and Teaching, 8, 279–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2013.861466
Shintani, N. (2016). Input-based tasks in foreign language instruction for young learners. Amsterdam,
Netherlands: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.9
Snow, M. A. (2001). Content-based and immersion models for second and foreign language teaching. In
M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second language or foreign language (pp. 303–
318). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of researchin second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow, England: Longman.

12

Appendix A
Outline of Tasks/Activities to be Used in Linked Sequences
Task Phase

Task/Activity
Introduction
Stories

Pre-task
Songs/chants
Task recordings
Counting money

Input tasks

How much is it?

Food delivery

Main task
cycle

Let’s go shopping

Point-of-view video
Language
focus

Notes
Provides comprehensible input with teacher talk and picturesor videos.
See Allen-Tamai (2013) for ideas on joint storytelling tasks foryoung learners.
Provides enjoyable opportunities for meaning-focused input
and output. See Peck (2001).
Use a recording to model the main task. See Willis (1996, pp.
86-99).
Listen-and-do task. Teacher says a number and students workin pairs to pick out the correct number of toy coins.
Matching/ordering task. Students are given lists of foods withprices. Teacher says the price and students must read the list
correctly to find the correct food card. Students can also be
asked to order foods from most to least expensive.
Listen-and-do task. Students are given instructions to locate
one or more food items and deliver them to the correct
location (supermarket, 100 yen shop, etc.)
Interactive role-play task. Shoppers are given a shopping list
and money props. Clerks are given food cards to arrange ontables. The interaction involves identifying the correct items,
negotiating the purchase, and reporting outcomes to theclass.
Clarifies task goals and introduces strategies such as
negotiation and bargain shopping.

Video/Audio
dictation

Dictation task. Promotes a focus on language form.

Shopping list

Meaning-focused writing task. Learners write their own list ofitems to buy before repeating the main task. Encourages
focus-on-form and promotes learner agency.

13

Appendix B
Main Task Sample Materials
Lists with overlapping items(reduced task complexity)

Lists with less overlap(increased task complexity)

Food cards

Toy money

14

Appendix C
Dictation Activity Sample Material

Video/audio script:“Hello, how are you? Do you have any apples?”“Yes, I do. The apples are 1,000 yen each”“1,000 yen!??” That is too expensive!!

Dictation sheet:

1. Food:

2. Food:

Name______________

ApplesPrice:

Price:

Date_____________

1000 yen

Cheap / Expensive

Cheap / Expensive

15

Chapter 2
Low-Proficiency University Students’ Perceptions ofPretask Planning and Their Monologue Task Performances
Chie Ogawa(Temple University, Japan Campus)
Abstract
This study explored three low-proficiency university students’ perceptions of pretask planning types andtheir oral performance in the 3/2/1 monologue tasks. The participants engaged in four types ofplanning— individual-written brainstorming, paired-interactive planning, teacher-modeled input, andno-planning—before performing the 3/2/1 task. Semi-structured individual interviews were conductedin Japanese with the participants. In addition to the qualitative data, the participants’ speech data fromthe 3/2/1 task were analyzed using the CAF (complexity, accuracy, fluency) indices. The interview
findings indicated that the low-proficiency students felt the 3/2/1 task was difficult and that they mainly
focused on meaning rather than form during the planning and speaking time. Results from quantitative
analysis showed that the students’ preferences of pretask planning type impacted their oral
performances to some extent; for example, if a learner prefers brainstorming planning, her oral
performance was better under that type of planning time than no planning time. Effective utilization ofpretask planning for low-proficiency learners are discussed.
Keywords: complexity, accuracy, fluency (CAF); interviews; pretask planning
The effects of pretask planning on speaking performance have been investigated over the lasttwo decades. Most researchers (e.g., Ellis, 2009; Foster & Skehan, 1999) agree that pretask planningassists learners to produce better speaking performances because it alleviates some of the workingmemory constraints they face by giving them an opportunity to activate concepts and access linguistic
forms, such as lexis and morphosyntax.
The majority of planning studies have been conducted in the CAF (Complexity, Accuracy,
Fluency) framework (e.g., Skehan, 1998). Previous researchers have found that pretask planning helped
learners’ oral production, particularly fluency; however, they showed mixed results where complexity
was concerned, and accuracy improved infrequently.
In some previous pretask planning studies, learners were allowed to use the planning time
however they wanted, an approach that is known as unguided planning (e.g., Wendel, 1997). In
unguided planning, the participants were given time to plan but the way of planning was not controlled.
As a result, there was no clear understanding of what the participants did when planning. However, an
increasing number of researchers have turned their attention to exploring particular types of guided
planning. For example, Geng and Ferguson (2013) found that fluency improved in pair-work planning inwhich the learners discussed content and linguistic form. Kawauchi (2005) found that reading a model
passage before speaking allowed low-proficiency learners to scaffold lexis and multi-word units, which
improve their lexical accuracy. These previous studies suggest that speaking outcomes can differ
depending on the type of pretask planning used.
Following Kawauchi (2005), Ogawa (2016) compared three types of pretask planning—brainstorming, pair-work rehearsal, and reading a model passage—to a no-planning condition with 29
16

first-year Japanese university students. The participants engaged in a 3/2/1 monologue speaking task inevery lesson for eight weeks. In the 3/2/1 task, students talk about the same topic for 3 minutes, then 2
minutes, and finally 1 minute. When students talk for 2 minutes and 1 minute, they are asked to speak
faster in order to repeat the same information in a shorter time. The participants were exposed todifferent types of the four pretask planning in a counterbalanced design. In the brainstorming condition,
students were given four minutes to write their ideas. In the pair-work rehearsal condition, two students
were given four minutes to rehearse what they would say in the monologue task. In the reading
condition, the participants read a model passage silently while the teacher read it aloud. In total, 232
speech samples were analyzed (29 participants x 2 performances x 4 planning conditions = 232 speechsamples).
The results showed that students made significantly greater complexity gains (clauses per ASunit and mean length of AS-units) in the reading condition than in the no-planning condition. In addition,
the reading condition produced the highest mean score for both morphosyntactic complexity andaccuracy, and the third highest mean score for oral fluency. These findings indicated that the reading
the modeled passage helped the participants produce well-balanced performances.
Most previous studies have analyzed students’ oral performances quantitatively; as a result,
there are few qualitative investigations of how learners perceive or use planning time. Sangarun (2005)
used think-aloud protocols and found that approximately 80-90% of students’ planning was focused onmeaning regardless of the type of instruction they received—focus on meaning, focus on form, or afocus on both meaning and form. Planning that combined meaning and form was more beneficial thanplanning focused on each component separately, as the participants who focused on meaning and form
improved in terms of both fluency and grammatical accuracy. Sangarun (2005) explained that thisfinding occurred because the participants who focused on both meaning and form successfully
decreased working-memory load, and this allowed them to place more attention on grammaticalaccuracy during the task performance.
This study addresses a gap in the literature that few researchers have investigated the effects ofpretask planning qualitatively. As a result of this gap, it is unclear how learners perceive the task and use
planning time. This study employs a qualitative analysis of interview data after participants completed
eight weeks of pedagogical treatment with different types of pretask planning. Using both interview
data and the learners’ oral performances provides robust evidence that can help language teachers tounderstand more clearly how pretask planning can have impact on the learners’ performances. The
purpose of this study is to shed light on students’ perceptions toward pretask planning and their oraltask performance. Specifically, this study was guided by the following research questions:
1. How do low-proficiency Japanese university students perceive the pretask planning conditions?
2. How do low-proficiency Japanese university students perceive their task performances?
3. How do the participants’ perceptions toward different planning conditions connect to their oral
performance in terms of complexity, accuracy and fluency?
Methods
Context and ParticipantsThis study is a part of a larger investigation of the types of pretask planning and students’ oral
development through eight weekly sessions with 29 students (Ogawa, 2016). All participants were firstyear university students who were required to take an English discussion course for two semesters in
the university. These discussion courses were held once a week for 90 minutes per session. All thestudents took a TOEIC for placement purposes and they were placed into one of the four levels based on
their scores.
17

The participants in this study were three first-year female students, Reina, Hanako, and Marin.1
They were placed in the lowest level based on their TOEIC score (279 and below). Because planning time
is more effective with low-proficiency learners than higher proficiency learners (Ortega, 2005; Kawauchi,2005), these three low-proficiency participants, who volunteered to participate in the interviews, werechosen.
Materials
A 3/2/1 task was employed eight times across eight consecutive weeks within one academic
semester. One speaker talked about a particular topic for three minutes to a partner, repeated the same
information but in two minutes to a different partner, and then did the same, this time in one minute, toa third partner. While the speakers performed the task, the listeners were instructed not to interrupt
with comments or to ask follow-up questions. After the first speaker performed the task three times,
the second speaker spoke on the same topic to three different partners for three, two, and one minute.
During the task, the participants were expected to state their ideas and opinions more fluently andefficiently in the second and third performances because of the time pressure and task repetition
inherent in the task design (De Jong & Perfetti, 2011). The task questions varied each week based on the
textbook topics (Table 1).
Table 1
Data Collection Schedule
Week Topic
Task Questions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Practice
Language

See Note below
Is it important for you study English? Do you think everyone inJapan needs to study English?
Language
Have you ever been to a foreign country? Would you like to
study abroad in the future? Why and why not?
FashionDo you think this university’s students are fashionable? Do you
think school uniforms are a good idea?
FashionWhat clothing stores do you usually go to? Why? What are some
important things to consider when you buy new clothes?
Media
How do you usually get news? TV? Internet? Newspaper? Whatis your favorite TV program?
Media
Which celebrities do you respect? Do you respect celebrities orordinary people?
Globalization What is your favorite Manga or Anime? Who is your favorite
Japanese singer?
Globalization Which do you prefer, American movies or Japanese movies?
Which do you prefer, Japanese pop culture or Japanesetraditional culture?

Planning
Types
Practice
PW
NP
BS
TL
PW
NP
BS
TL

Note. NP = No-Planning Condition; BS = Brainstorming Condition; TL = Teacher-Led Condition; PW = Pair-Work
Condition. Week 1 was a practice session designed to familiarize the participants with the 3/2/1 oral task.

1

All names are pseudonyms

18Planning Conditions
Prior to engaging in the weekly 3/2/1 task, the participants took part in one of the following
pretask planning conditions: no-planning (NP), brainstorming (BS), pair-work (PW), and teacher-led (TL)
planning. The participants were exposed to the same condition twice during the study (4 planning types
x 2 times = 8 weeks). Table 1 shows the data collection schedule and task questions.
In the no-planning condition, the participants engaged in the 3/2/1 task without engaging in any
planning. In the brainstorming condition, the participants had four minutes to write as many ideas as
possible about the task topic in English on a handout. In the pair-work condition, the participants had
four minutes to ask questions about the topic to a partner in English. For example, if one student
answered the question (Is it important for you to study English?) by saying “In my opinion, studying
English is important,” their partner asked follow-up questions to elicit more information such as “Why?”or “For example, when is it important?” In the teacher-led planning condition the students silently reada model passage while the teacher read aloud the same model passage. The students were notpermitted to refer to handouts, dictionaries, or other external resources during the 3/2/1 task.
Data Collection and Analysis
Interview procedures. Three semi-structured 20-minute individual interviews were conducted inJapanese after the eight weeks of the treatment. The purposes of the interviews were to investigate (a)the students’ perceptions toward the tasks and different types of planning and (b) the relationshipbetween their perceptions and their task performances.
Interview analysis. Affective coding (Saldaña, 2013), which concerns information about
emotions, values, versus, and evaluation, was used to code the interview data and to investigate thestudents’ perceptions of the 3/2/1 task and their oral performance. Saldaña explains that humanbehavior is much influenced by their attitude and perspectives (p. 105). Therefore, affective coding
should be included in order to understand the students’ perceptions toward classroom practice andtheir oral performance.
I transcribed the participants’ interview data and I categorized their perceptions into threedomains: (a) pretask planning; (b) 3/2/1 task; (c) other variables (e.g., topics, length of the task, partner).
Among affective areas (e.g., emotions, values, versus, and evaluation), two specific types of coding wereadopted for this analysis: value coding and versus coding. Value coding was used to analyze theparticipants’ values, attitudes, and beliefs. Because the participants did not always explicitly state theirvalues, phrases implying their values (e.g., I like…; I am (not) good at…; and, I think it is important…)
were interpreted. According to Saldaña (2013), “Versus codes identify in dichotomous or binary terms
the individuals, groups, social systems, organizations, phenomena, processes, and concepts” (p. 115). As
the participants compared the planning conditions and variables that influenced their oral performance
during the interview, phrases stating or implying dichotomous terms (e.g., I prefer brainstorming
planning) were identified.
CAF analysis. In addition to the qualitative data, the participants’ speech data from the 3/2/1
tasks were collected for eight weeks. Only data from the first iteration of the 3/2/1 task weretranscribed because the purpose of this study was to examine the effects of pretask planning time, notthe effects of task repetition. The speech data were analyzed using the CAF indices. Hanako attended alleight sessions, Reina was absent once, and Marin had three absences; however, they all took part in thefour planning conditions, so the mean scores for each planning condition were calculated.
Complexity, accuracy, and fluency were measured after speech samples were pruned.
Complexity was assessed using (a) the number of clauses per AS-unit and (b) the mean length of the ASunit (number of words/AS-unit). An AS-unit, which is often used for oral task research, is defined as “a19single speaker's utterance consisting of an independent clause, or sub-clausal unit, together with any
subordinate clauses) associated with either” (Foster, Tonkyn, & Wigglesworth, 2000, p. 365). Accuracy
was assessed with the percentage of error-free clauses and the percentage of error-free AS-unit. Fluency
was assessed using syllables per minute.
Results
Students’ Perceptions of the Pretask Planning Conditions
All three interview participants believed that pretask planning helped them perform better.
They stated that pretask planning was especially helpful when the task questions were unclear andtopics were relatively unfamiliar. For example, Reina stated that she could have misunderstood thequestions of “pop culture” without planning on Week 9 (Table 1), “if I just started a task without
planning, I might have talked about totally different things” while Hanako reported that planning gave
her time to focus on meaning by thinking about what she wanted to articulate. Their comments impliedthat they needed time to fully understand the questions and to formulate responses; thus, the planning
time enhanced both task comprehension and the activation of concepts.
Brainstorming planning. Reina stated her preference for brainstorming planning rather thanpair-work planning because it allowed her to use all the planning time for herself:
Brainstorming (is best). If I have the same ideas as the examples (in the teacher-led condition), I
am not sure (if I can say that). If pair-work, I can plan only one topic during allotted planning
time. I am trying to confirm what I want to say by doing output but the pair-work planningcannot allow me produce much (output). If we could discuss “we could say this, or that” using
Japanese in the pair-work planning time, it is more suitable. However, in English, I cannot comeup with English words during the pair-work planning, and I cannot practice more than two
topics, so I cannot organize well. But for brainstorming, I can read and organize (by myself).
Reina did not find value in the teacher-led planning condition because it did not provide her withtime to think of her own ideas, and she disliked producing ideas that were similar to the model passage.
She preferred the brainstorming condition over pair-work planning because she could use the planning
time to generate her own ideas efficiently.
Pair-work planning. While Reina stated that she did not feel comfortable speaking about theideas she heard in the teacher-led planning condition, Marin valued the opportunity to listen to theother people’s ideas: “I want to share (ideas). I wonder what kind of ideas (others have).” She later
showed her affective values toward sharing ideas, by saying “I want to share ideas” and “I want tolisten.” Compared to the brainstorming condition, the teacher-led planning and pair-work planningallowed the students to listen to other’s ideas prior to engaging in the 3/2/1/ task.
Teacher-led planning. Hanako had a negative perception of teacher-led planning, as she statedthat she lacked confidence that she could fully understand the teacher-led passage. She said, “You know
the ones with passages? With that (planning), I don’t understand the sentences. I understand somewords vaguely. I don’t understand quite well but (I can assume) that can mean this.”She said “I don’t understand” twice, showing her difficulty toward understanding the teacher-led
passage. She needed to infer the meaning based on words she only recognized. Although the teacherled passage was read aloud in English by the instructor, Hanako sometimes misinterpreted the meaningof the model input. Table 2 shows the advantages and disadvantages of each planning condition as
indicated by the three interview participants.
20

Table 2
Summary of the Students’ Perceptions Toward Planning Types
Planning condition
Advantages
No-planning
If the topic is familiar enough, they
don’t need much planning time.
Brainstorming
Pair-work
Teacher-led

Students can organize their ideas
themselves.
Students can listen to ideas before
speaking.
Students can listen to ideas before
speaking.

Disadvantages
Students might misunderstand thequestion.
Students don’t have time toarticulate their thoughts.
Students cannot share ideas withothers.
Allotted time is not sufficient tocover the given topics.
Some lexis are difficult tounderstand.

In sum, the interview participants reported their perceptions of advantages and disadvantagesof each planning type (Table 2). The participants saw planning as an effective way to generate ideas.
Under the brainstorming condition, the participants thought deeply about what they want to talk about
by writing down many ideas. Under the pair-work condition and the teacher-led condition, theparticipants listened to other members’ or the teacher’s ideas to help them to generate their own ideas.
None of them reported focusing on syntactic forms during pretask planning.
Students’ Perceptions of Their Task Performances
The three interview participants felt that the 3/2/1 task was difficult because of the monologue
style and its length. Marin said that the task, particularly the three-minute performance, was the mostdifficult task in the 90-minute class: “Oh, (the 3/2/1 task) is the hardest one. I could speak if I was asked
questions from a partner. But if I have to speak by myself for three minutes, I feel I have to preparecontent beforehand.”This perception toward “speaking solo” versus “speaking with a partner” was also seen in Reina’scomments. Reina also expressed the difficulty of the 3/2/1 task as the following:
I was not used to speaking by myself for the first time. My listener had asked me some questions(in the past semester). I had been practicing to reply to these questions. But if I have to speak
monologue, I feel structured organization is necessary. If my speech is well organized, I could saythings more fluently.
Although the interview participants felt that the three-minute monologue was challenging, they
had a strategy to complete the task, which was to focus on meaning rather than form. For example, allthree participants said that conveying meaning was more important than speaking accurately. Marinreported that when she felt that her partner did not seem to understand her, she used words andphrases rather than grammatically correct sentences to express her ideas. Hanako also appeared tosupport this approach as “I have to continue speaking regardless. Listeners are being quiet, aren’t they?
So I have to speak!” Hanako added, “I am not able to speak much. I usually say words. Chunk, chunk,
chunk. I think it is okay as long as it conveys the meaning.” Indeed, Hanako’s utterances were relatively
short and not complex. Hanako talked about her favorite singer as following (Week 8; brainstorming
condition):
21

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

my favorite celebrity is Spy Air and Zektobach
Spy Air is singer groups
I like Spy Air songs, for example, my friend…
that song is very happy
I like Spy Air
Zektobach is music group

Marin and Hanako’s strategy to overcome difficulty of the three minutes was to continue
speaking anyway. If the listener did not understand, Marin and Hanako said that they selected words
without focusing on producing the correct linguistic form. Because the interview data also showed theirspeaking self-efficacy appeared to be low (e.g., “I cannot say a great deal”, “I am not able to speakmuch”), they attempted to solve their problems by using known words to convey meaning instead of
producing grammatically accurate utterances. Reina also focused on conveying meaning rather thanspeaking in grammatically correct sentences. She said:
I want to speak clearly. But sometimes, I include be-verb in a strange position or I used -ing in apast tense sentence…. However, even if I say ‘come school’, it still makes sense without
preposition, so I think it is okay.
Reina did not value accuracy as long as her utterances made sense (e.g., come school); thus, she valued
meaning more than accuracy during the 3/2/1 task.
Students’ Oral Performances Under Each Planning Condition
Table 3 shows the CAF results for each participant under each planning condition. Some of theparticipants’ performances were consistent with their interview answers. For example, Marin said thatshe preferred to listen to other people’s ideas prior to performing the task so that she knew what otherpeople would say in advance. Indeed, she performed well in the pair-work in terms of mean length of
AS-unit (7.94), Error-free clauses (0.79) and Error-free AS-unit (0.76), which are all the highest scoresamong the four planning conditions. Reina said that she preferred the brainstorming condition because
she could use the whole planning time to think of what to say by herself. Indeed, her syllables per
minute was the second highest (79.00) under the brainstorming condition, while Reina’s otherperformances areas under this condition did not differ appreciably compared to other planning
conditions. This implies that her performance with brainstorming condition is considered as wellbalanced performance.
On the other hand, students’ preference did not always support their oral performance.
Hanako stated that hearing the teacher read the model passage was sometimes challenging because ofher lack of lexical knowledge. However, she was able to maximize her syntactic accuracy in the teacherled planning condition the most (error-free clauses = .64, error-free AS-unit = .55) as her otherperformance areas under the teacher-led planning were relatively good compared to other condition
types. Another evidence is that the participants’ performance under no-planning condition was notalways as bad while they all agreed that they preferred to have pretask planning time over no-planning
condition. For example, some of Reina’s performances in the no-planning condition had high measuresfor complexity (clauses per AS-unit = 1.41) and accuracy (error-free clauses = .83, error-free AS-unit= .74). As the participants said in the interview, the necessity of planning time is possibly different
depending on topic familiarity.
22

The findings in Table 3 supports that Skehan’s limited attentional capacity theory (1998): While
the speaker attends to meaning (fluency), their performance on form sacrifices. Hanako had the highest
mean length of AS-unit (8.50) while the lowest syllables per minute (43.02) under the brainstorming
condition. Reina had the highest syllables per minute (85.83) while having the lowest error-free AS-unit(0.66) under the teacher-led condition. This implies that none of the types of planning in this study wascompletely efficacious in terms of improving all areas of CAF.
Table 3The Interview Participants’ Task Performances
Hanako

Reina

Marin

NP

BS

PW

TL

NP

BS

PW

TL

NP

BS

PW

TL

Clauses per AS

1.07

0.97

1.32

1.10

1.41

1.23

1.40

1.21

1.17

1.26

1.12

1.37

Mean length ofAS
Error-freeclauses
Error-free ASunit
Syl per min

6.39

8.50

7.23

6.43

8.32

8.31

8.87

8.40

7.78

7.53

7.94

6.99

0.53

0.33

0.32

0.64

0.83

0.82

0.76

0.72

0.71

0.58

0.79

0.69

0.49

0.24

0.24

0.55

0.74

0.73

0.73

0.66

0.67

0.47

0.76

0.56

59.5
0

43.0
2

53.0
0

54.8
4

67.8
3

79.0
0

65.0
0

85.8
3

70.6
7

70.0
0

70.3
3

65.1
7

Note. NP = no-planning condition; BS = brainstorming condition; TL = teacher-led condition; PW = pair-workcondition. The number is calculated their average scores under each planning condition. (Each condition was
implemented twice.) Marin was absent in week 2, 3, 8. Reina was absent in week 6.

Discussion
The qualitative and quantitative data provided three main findings. First, the interview data
showed that the participants viewed planning as a valuable opportunity because they perceived the
3/2/1 task as challenging due to its length and monologue style. Pretask planning time allowed theparticipants to prepare to engage in the monologue tasks. Given that the low-proficiency students felt
anxiety and perceived greater difficulty for speaking a monologue for three minutes, providing planning
time is particularly helpful when the topics are unfamiliar to the learners.
Second, the interview findings showed that the participants believe that meaning should beprioritized over syntactic accuracy. That is similar to what Sangarun (2005) found. Low-proficiency
students cannot attend to meaning and form simultaneously (Anderson, 1995; Yuan & Ellis, 2003), asituation that can lead them to prioritize one aspect of language—typically meaning—to achieve acommunicative goal. Because the 3/2/1 task is particularly well suited as a fluency development activity
due to the verbatim repetition (Boers, 2014; De Jong & Perfetti, 2011), learners might repeat theincorrect form in the second and third iteration. Teachers should know how and when learners canacquire the correct form (Boers, 2014).
Third, given that the findings show that none of the planning conditions produced an impeccable
performance in all the CAF areas, each planning condition had a trade-off effect, in which a speaker
often compromised fluency and form (accuracy / complexity). Yet, from Reina and Marin’ point of view,
their preferences were reflected on their oral performances to some extent. For example, Marin23performed better under the pair-work planning, which she thought was beneficial to have input
borrowing. Reina also produced a well-balanced performance in the brainstorming condition, which she
liked because it allowed her to take time to plan. At the same time, it is also important to recognize theparticipants’ preferences showed an unexpected impact on their oral performances in spite of theirperceptions. For example, although Hanako reported that she found it difficult to read the teachermodeled passage because of her lack of vocabulary, the teacher-led planning was beneficial for her interms of producing more syntactically accurate utterances. This might be because she borrowed someof the accurate forms from the teacher model passage.
The interview findings shed light on low-proficiency students’ individual performances and theirperceptions toward pedagogical intervention. Unlike Ogawa’s quantitative findings (2016), this study
employed qualitative analysis. The results suggest that analyzing the students’ oral performances moreclosely depending on their proficiency level gives some insight about the relationship between students’proficiency level and their oral performance, in relation with planning conditions. Further investigation
about the low-proficiency students’ oral performances and pretask planning needs to be conducted for
future studies.
Conclusion
The interview findings show that the low-proficiency Japanese university students perceived
each pretask planning differently, and they mainly focused on meaning rather than form during planningand their speaking performances. The quantitative results suggest that students’ preference toward
each pretask planning type influenced their oral performances to some extent.
There are two limitations of the study. First, due to the small sample size and the focus on lowproficiency students, it is difficult to generalize the findings. Future studies investigating the perceptionsof learners at different proficiency levels will shed greater light on this issue. A second limitation is that
only one interview was conducted with each participant. Additional interviews and other types of datacollection such as think aloud protocols and retrospective interviews with videos (i.e., stimulated recall)would potentially provide details about learners’ use of pretask planning.
In spite of these limitations, the findings provide two implications for language teachers. First, it
would be advisable to implement the 3/2/1 task based on the students’ anxiety level, proficiency level,
and their topic familiarity. Providing planning time is beneficial to maximize the effects of the 3/2/1 task.
Without too much to say during the initial iteration, a speaker does not need to speak faster in thesecond iteration. Another way to reduce the low-proficiency students’ anxiety is to implement a shorter
version of the task (e.g., 2.5/2/1.5 or 2/1.5/1) in the initial stage of the semester.
Another implication is planning with form-focus could be beneficial because the interview data
showed that low-proficiency learners tended to focus on meaning rather than form during the 3/2/1
tasks. It is understandable that the participants tried to make sense and did not pay attention togrammatical forms. However, when students do not have a chance to learn accurate forms, they might
continue speaking with inaccurate forms in the second and the third iteration in the 3/2/1 task. Input
enhancement, which draws attention to target grammatical forms or vocabulary (e.g., underlining,highlighting, bold face font), could be a useful approach to help learners with forms. With simpler andcomprehensible modeled-passages that the low-proficiency students could easily read, they might beable to understand (and recall) the content as well as how to say specific vocabulary and phrases. A
combination of brainstorming with input enhancement might be another way to help learners withforms. Future research needs to clarify the effects of focus-on-form planning for low-proficiency
students so teachers can take into consideration students’ utilization of pretask planning.
24References
Anderson, J. R. (1995). Learning and memory: An integrated approach. New York, NY: Wiley.
Boers, F. (2014). A reappraisal of the 4/3/2 activity. RELC Journal, 45, 221–235.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688214546964
De Jong, N., & Perfetti, C. (2011). Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency
development and proceduralization. Language Learning, 61, 533–568.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00620.x
Ellis, R. (2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity, andaccuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30, 474–509.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp042
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1999). The influence of source of planning and focus of planning on task-based
performance. Language Teaching Research, 3, 215–247.
https://doi.org/10.1177/136216889900300303
Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons.
Applied Linguistics, 21, 354–375. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.3.354
Geng, X., & Ferguson, G. (2013). Strategic planning in task-based language teaching: The effects ofparticipatory structure and task type. System, 41, 982–993.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.09.005
Kawauchi, C. (2005). The effects of strategic planning on the oral narratives of learners with low andhigh intermediate proficiency in R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task-performance in a second
language (pp. 143–166). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Benjamins.
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.09kaw
Ortega, L. (2005). What do learners plan? Learner-driven attention to form during pre-task planning. In
R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 77–109). Amsterdam,
Netherlands: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.07ort
Ogawa, C. (2016). Examining the effects of types of pretask planning on oral performances. JALT Journal,
38, 97–118.
Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sangarun, J. (2005). The effects of focusing on meaning and form in strategic planning in R. Ellis (Ed.),
Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 111–142). Amsterdam, Netherlands:
Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.08sanSkehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Wendel, J. (1997). Planning and second language narrative production. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Temple University Japan.
Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity
and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24, 1–27.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.1.1

25

Chapter 3
L2 Writing Development in Intermediate College-Level
Japanese-as-a-Foreign-Language Classrooms
Tatsushi Fukunaga(Purdue University)
Abstract
The effects of task repetition have attracted considerable attention in second/foreign language
education; nevertheless, relatively little attention has been devoted to writing tasks (Manchón, 2014),
especially in languages other than English. In one of the few studies to address the issue albeit inrelation with English learners, Nitta and Baba’s longitudinal study (2014) found that Japanese EFL(English as a foreign language) students considerably improved their syntactic complexity and lexical
aspects using a timed writing task, but not fluency. Inspired by their study, the current study makes thefirst attempt to provide insights into L2 writing development of Japanese-as-a-foreign-language (JFL)learners. Using a “15-Minute Writing Task,” this study aims to examine whether JFL students statisticallysignificantly increased their syntactic complexity, fluency, and lexical variety in written language
performance over one academic semester (16 weeks). This study employed two different types ofwriting tasks (descriptive and argumentative essays) to ascertain any developmental differences
between them. Each week the learner participants (n=29), who were enrolled in an intermediate-levelcourse at an American university, engaged in the timed writing tasks. Writing samples were collected at
the beginning and end of the semester. An analysis of 116 compositions demonstrated that the learners
considerably improved overall syntactic complexity, complexity by subordination, and fluency over theperiod, but not lexical variety (kanji-by-ratio). For further interpretation, effect sizes (Plonsky & Oswald,2014) were utilized, which identified developmental differences depending on the essay types. Althoughsome indices of fluency and syntactic complexity increased to a large degree in descriptive essays, nolarge degree of effect sizes in argumentative essays were found. This study contributes to further
understanding the important role of different essay types.
Keywords: complexity of writing tasks; descriptive and argumentative essays; Japanese-as-a-foreignlanguage; second language writing development; task repetition
Task repetition is defined as the “repetition of the same or slightly altered tasks—whether
whole task or parts of the task” (Bygate & Samuda, 2005, p. 43). From pedagogical perspectives insecond language (L2) learning, Larsen-Freeman (2009) highlighted the important role of task repetition
by claiming that “using a task more than once is what drives learning” and “revisiting the same, orsimilar, territory again and again is essential” (p. 584). The effects of task repetition for L2 learning has
attracted the attention of many researchers. For example, Bygate (2001) asserted that L2 learners tend
to focus more on the meaning of statements for achieving an initial task. Then, when the learners are
given a chance to engage in task repetition, they are able to pay more attention to linguistic forms
because they are familiar with the task content and/or genre and thus are able to monitor theirlanguage to select more appropriate methods for using the target language.
Regarding task repetition research on spoken and written language production, Manchón (2014)
stated that the cognitive process of writing tasks is different from that of oral tasks in many respects
because “writers continuously shift attention among idea generation, planning content or procedures,26

text generation, and revision and evaluation processes” (p. 29); however, relatively little attention has
been devoted to the effects of repeating writing tasks. In a recent important study, Nitta and Baba(2014) conducted longitudinal research to examine the effects of task repetition on L2 writing
throughout one academic year. The participants, who were 46 Japanese university EFL students, wererequired to select one of three topics provided by the researchers and write a composition on thechosen topic within ten minutes. After a one-week interval, the participants were asked to write acomposition using the same topic they had selected in the previous week (specific task repetition). The
topic was changed every two weeks, and the writing assignments were carried out over a period of 30
weeks (task-type repetition). The findings indicated that there were different effects for the specific task
repetition and task-type repetition. Although the former task repetition had limited effects, the lattertask repetition showed considerable improvements on syntactic complexity and lexical aspects.
To date, no longitudinal studies have investigated the effects of task repetition on L2 writing
skills in Japanese. For this reason, the current study will make the first attempt to fill this gap and toprovide insights into L2 writing development of Japanese-as-a-foreign-language (JFL) learners at an
American university. Furthermore, a great deal of thought should be given to writing task topics. The
topics used in Nitta and Baba’s (2014) study were supposed “to be easy to write about for Japanese
university students” (p. 114), referring to a list of essay topics from the Regents’ Test (Weigle, 2006).
However, this list provides various topics, including descriptive and argumentative essay topics.
According to the Cognition Hypothesis (Robinson, 2001), different cognitive demands of tasks lead todifferent task performances. Therefore, the current study attempted to examine whether there are any
statistically significant differences between the two types of writing tasks (i.e., descriptive andargumentative essays).
The study reported in this article is part of a large-scale study investigating L2 writing
development in intermediate college-level JFL classrooms over one academic year. Using a “15-MinuteWriting Task,” this study aimed to investigate whether there are any statistically significant changes inthe L2 writing ability of JFL students over one semester (16 weeks) at an American university. The study
was guided by the following research questions:
1. Do JFL students statistically significantly increase their linguistic complexity, fluency, andlexical variety in written language performance over one academic semester (16 weeks)?
2. Are there any significant differences in L2 writing development between the two types ofwriting tasks (i.e., descriptive and argumentative essays)?
Methods
Context and Participants
The research participants were 29 students enrolled in JPNS 301, which was an intermediatelevel Japanese course, at an American university in the fall semester of 2017. The learners weredomestic students and international students whose native languages were English, Chinese,
Vietnamese, or Urdu. Even though some students studied Japanese at the secondary school level, theuniversity considered the participants to be at an intermediate level based on the school placement
tests. Among the participants, some had visited Japan for a short period (ranging from a few days to 1.5
months), mainly for vacation. Although two of the participants, a Chinese native speaker and an English
native speaker, had spent 3–6 years in Japan in their childhood because of their families’ businessaffairs, they were identified as intermediate-level students based on the school placement tests.

27

Materials
The Cognition Hypothesis (Robinson, 2001) claims that, as the cognitive demands of tasks
increase, learners will be able to produce more accurate and complex language. In this respect, if thetasks require learners to explain their rational thoughts (i.e., increased reasoning demands), then thelearners will produce more accurate and complex L2 output. On the other hand, if the learners
undertake tasks that require little or no reasoning, their L2 output may be less accurate and complex.
Taking this hypothesis into account, this study employed two different types of writing tasks: descriptive(e.g., Give a detailed description of your hometown) and argumentative essays (e.g., What do you think
about drinking alcohol? What are the pros and cons? Describe your reasons and opinions). The students
received three different topics each time. In order to avoid the students’ having to write about topics
they found uninteresting or difficult, the students were allowed to select the most familiar andinteresting topic from the three topics (Nitta & Baba, 2014).
In the first week, the students engaged in a practice writing task so that they could familiarize
themselves with the task procedures. Each task was conducted during class time, and the topics wereintroduced just before the task. In a five-minute pre-task activity, learners completed individual written
planning activities. They were also allowed to use a dictionary during this pre-task phase. Next, they
were asked to write as much as possible about the topic for 15 minutes without stopping. The “15Minute Writing Tasks” were conducted as independent tasks in the course, meaning the researcher
conducted neither grammar instruction nor linguistic exercises for the writing task (See Appendix A for asample essay). For this study, only the Pretest and Posttest essays (essays 1 and 7) were analyzed (SeeAppendix B for the three writing task topics provided each time).
Procedures
The study was conducted following the procedures shown in Figure 1. The two sections were
taught by the researcher. JPNS 301 was oriented toward the integrated skills of speaking, listening,reading, and writing using the same syllabus, assessments, and Japanese textbook. Therefore, all the
research participants studied the Japanese language in a similar context, which included three 50minute classes a week.
JPNS 301, Fall semester, 2017
Week

Treatment Group (2 sections, n=29)1Practice writing task, Basic Information Questionnaire2
Descriptive essay 1 (pretest)
3
Argumentative essay 1 (pretest)
4–13
Descriptive essays 2–6 in even weeks/Argumentative essays 2–6 in odd weeks
14
Thanksgiving Break15
Descriptive essay 7 (posttest)
16
Argumentative essay 7 (posttest)
Figure 1. Overview of the experimental design of the present study.
Measurements for Data Analysis
The CALF (syntactic complexity, accuracy, lexis, and fluency) measures of language production
have been used for several decades in L2 writing research to analyze language performance (Polio &Friedman, 2016; Wolfe-Quintero, Inagaki, & Kim, 1998). To linguistically analyze the learners’
28compositions, this study investigated how the degrees of fluency, syntactic complexity, and lexical
variety changed over one semester (16 weeks).
Fluency. In English writing, words can be counted individually since a space is provided between
each word. Japanese, on the other hand, is an agglutinative language that uses various morphemes todetermine the meaning of words, and there are no boundaries between words in a Japanese text
(Tsujimura, 2014). Therefore, a visual device such as spaces is not useful in determining the number ofwords. Example (1) illustrates this point. To measure writing fluency in Japanese language, for example,
the total number of characters can be used (Lee, 2006). However, while most Western languages
employ alphabetic systems, Japanese language uses three systems: syllabic characters (hiragana andkatakana), logographic Chinese characters (kanji), and alphabetic characters (r𝑜̅ maji). Therefore, (1a)can be written in (1b), which includes only hiragana, or can be written in (1c), which includes bothhiragana and kanji. Although the sentence meanings of (1b) and (1c) are the same, the numbers ofcharacters are different (i.e., 1b = 21 characters and 1c = 16 characters).
(1)
(1a)
(1b)
(1c)

この絵画は、私の父が買った絵画です。
Kono
kaiga-wawatashi-no
chichi-ga
Thispicture-Top
my-Genfather-Nom“This (picture) is the picture that my father bought”
この
かいがは
わたしの
ちちが
この
絵画は
私の
父が

katta
boughtkaiga-desu
picture-Copula

かった
買った

かいがです
絵画です

Note. Top = Topic marker -wa, Gen = Genitive case, Nom = Nominative -ga. Underlined = kanji

To assess learners’ L2 writing development in terms of fluency appropriately, in addition to thetotal number of characters, this study also counted total numbers of bunsetsu and sentences as fluency
indices (Ishibashi, 2012). The bunsetsu is “a commonly used linguistic unit in Japanese-traditional
grammar, consisting of one or more following functional words” (Kurohashi & Nagao, 1998, p. 720).
Accordingly, both sentences, 1b and 1c, contain six bunsetsu.
Syntactic complexity. For syntactic complexity, a T-unit complex ratio has been frequently usedin L2 learner text analysis (Wolfe-Quintero et al., 1998). This study considered three measures as indicesof syntactic complexity: (a) average number of characters per sentence, (b) average number of bunsetsu
per sentence, and (c) average number of S(entence)-nodes per T-unit. The T-unit was defined by Hunt(1977) as “a single main clause (or independent clause) plus whatever other subordinate clauses or nonclauses are attached to, or embedded within, that one main clause” (p. 93). The S-nodes include
independent clauses, dependent clauses, and embedded noun-modifying clauses. Therefore, thefollowing sentence (1d) consists of two S-nodes and one T-unit:(1d)[S-node konoThiskaiga-wa
picture-Top[S-node watashi-no
my-Genchichi-ga
father-Nom

katta]
boughtkaiga-desu]
picture-Copula

The number of characters/bunsetsu per sentence as average sentence length has been used as
overall and general syntactic complexity measures in line with Ortega (2003) and Nitta and Baba (2014).
On the other hand, the number of S-nodes per T-unit, which considers the depth of a T-unit as
subordination for syntactic complexity, has been used in the field of Japanese language education (e.g.,
Ishibashi, 2012). It is assumed that, the more characters/bunsetsu each sentence has, the more complex
structures each sentence contains. Similarly, the more S-nodes each T-unit has, the more complex
structures each T-unit contains.
29

Lexical variety. The main focus of this study was to analyze measures of fluency and syntactic
complexity; however, as a lexical variety index, kanji-by-ratio was also measured by counting thenumber of kanji in the total number of characters for each written composition. For example, if student
A wrote 100 characters that contained 25 kanji characters, the kanji-by-ratio was 0.25.
In order to check for inter- and intra-rater reliability in coding, 116 compositions (i.e., 58
descriptive essays and 58 argumentative essays) were coded by the researcher and then recoded by asecond rater after the initial coding. Discussions between the raters resolved all the disagreements.
Since the homogeneity of the data sets was not confirmed for some linguistic features, non-parametrictests (Wilcoxon signed-rank test) were conducted to investigate the statistical significance of allquantitative results.
The significance tests, displaying p values, can be useful for examining whether there arestatistically significant differences between two or more groups. The current study also used an effectsize (r = Z / √N) for the statistical interpretation. The effect size indicates the magnitude of an effect orstrength of relationship, which is independent of the number of observations.
Regarding the magnitude of effect sizes r values for correlations, Cohen’s benchmarks of small (r= .1), medium (r = .3), and large (r = .5) effects have been used in L2 research. However, based on 346
primary studies and 91 meta-analyses, Plonsky and Oswald (2014) stated that “Cohen’s scale
underestimates the range of effects typically obtained in L2 research” (p. 889). Accordingly, to examine
within-groups/pre-post contrasts, they recommended the following scales: small (r = .25), medium (r= .4), and large (r = .6). Following Plonsky and Oswald, the interpretation of r was: |.25| ≤ small < |.4|;|.4| ≤ medium < |.6|; |.6| ≤ large.
Results
To examine whether JFL students statistically significantly increased their fluency and syntactic
complexity in their written language performances over one academic semester (Research Question 1),
first, the composite scores were calculated: One was the sum of scores awarded for the descriptive
essays, and the other was the sum of scores awarded for the argumentative essays. Next, to investigate
whether there were any statistically significant differences in L2 writing development between the two
types of writing tasks (Research Question 2), the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for paired samples was
conducted separately. Tables 1–3 show the results of the statistical comparisons: Table 1 for thecomposite scores, Table 2 for the descriptive essays (29 pairs × eight indices), and Table 3 for theargumentative essays (29 pairs × eight indices).
The significance level was set at p = .00625, utilizing a Bonferroni adjustment (i.e., .05/8) tocompare changes in the two types of essays. For fluency, as shown in Tables 1–3, the number ofcharacters and the number of bunsetsu increased considerably, while there was no statisticallysignificant difference in the number of sentences. With regard to syntactic complexity, the number ofcharacters per sentence, the number of bunsetsu per sentence, and the number of S-nodes per T-unit
demonstrated substantial progress. Although the participants produced more kanji in the last tasks thanin the first tasks, the results of kanji-by-ratio showed no statistically significant differences.
The effect sizes (r) in Tables 1–3 show that results of most measures changed to a moderate orlarge degree. While the number of bunsetsu and the number of bunsetsu per sentence increased to alarge degree in Tables 1 and 2, the number of S-nodes per T-unit increased to a large degree indescriptive essays only. In sharp contrast, Table 3 shows no large degree of effect sizes in argumentative
essays.

30

Table 1
Descriptive and Inferential Statistics of 8 Measures and Effect Sizes for All Essays (n=58)
First Essay
Last Essay
M
SD
M
SD
Z
Fluency1
No. of characters
293.4755.43
329.0072.48-3.8462
No. of bunsetsu
73.97
14.97
87.79
19.50
-5.031
3
No. of sentence
11.79
2.45
11.74
2.42
-.097
Syntactic complexity
No. of characters
4
25.52
5.26
28.47
5.81
-3.883
per Sentence
No. of bunsetsu
5
6.44
1.44
7.59
1.52
-5.005
per Sentence
No. of S-nodes
6
1.84
.42
2.14
.40
-4.159per T-unit
Lexical variety
7
No. of kanji
62.72
20.45
74.48
25.11
-3.912
8kanji-by-ratio
.2123
.0563
.2255
.0564
-1.622

p

r

<.001
<.001
.923

.51
.66
.01

<.001

.51

<.001

.66

<.001

.55

<.001
.105

.51
.21

Note. Bold underlined = .60 or above.

Table 2
Descriptive and Inferential Statistics of 8 Measures and Effect Sizes for Descriptive Essays (n=29)
First Essay
Last Essay
M
SD
M
SD
Z
p
Fluency1
No. of characters
293.6658.64
327.8672.03-2.596.009
2
No. of bunsetsu
70.41
15.07
86.59
18.54
-3.908<.001
3No. of sentence
11.93
2.80
11.86
2.61
-.036
.971
Syntactic complexity
No. of characters
4
25.39
5.38
28.23
6.15
-2.757.006
per Sentence
No. of bunsetsu
5
6.09
1.38
7.42
1.41
-4.465<.001
per Sentence
No. of S-nodes
6
1.69
.41
2.01
.35
-3.341.001
per T-unit
Lexical variety
7
No. of kanji
59.69
20.90
72.24
27.23
-2.585.010
8kanji-by-ratio
.2030
.0650
.2193
.0659
-1.524
.127

r
.48
.73
.01
.51
.83
.62
.48
.28

Note. Bold underlined = .60 or above.

31

Table 3
Descriptive and Inferential Statistics of 8 Measures and Effect Sizes for Argumentative Essays (n=29)
First Essay
Last Essay
M
SD
M
SD
Z
p
r
Fluency1
No. of characters293.2853.06
330.1474.18-2.854.004.53
2
No. of bunsetsu
77.52
14.24
89.00
20.68
-3.083.002.57
3No. of sentence
11.66
2.07
11.62
2.26
-.184
.854
.03
Syntactic complexity
No. of characters
4
25.65
5.23
28.71
5.55
-2.779.005.52
per Sentence
No. of bunsetsu
5
6.79
1.43
7.75
1.64
-2.670.008.50
per Sentence
No. of S-nodes
6
1.99
.39
2.27
.40
-2.437.015.45
per T-unit
Lexical variety
7
No. of kanji
65.76
19.90
76.72
23.06
-2.931.003.54
8kanji-by-ratio
.2215
.0454
.2316
.0454
-.724
.469
.13
Discussion
In relation to Nitta and Baba’s (2014) study, which demonstrated that syntactic complexity
progressed while fluency did not, the current study partially supported their results. The findings thatsyntactic complexity progressed were in line with their study, but the results of fluency were not. One of
the reasons for this different result could be the fact that I modified their timed writing task for thecurrent study. Nitta and Baba conducted the ‘10-Minute Writing Task’ during which their participants
were asked to choose the most familiar of the three topics and write on the topic using a dictionary.
When I conducted the ‘10-Minute Writing Task’ as a pilot study with intermediate JFL learners, whowere not the current research participants, I found that there were several issues with these task
procedures in this context. First, 10 minutes was too short for intermediate JFL learners to write a few
paragraphs. Next, most students spent more time looking up words that they did not know and less time
writing during the task. Finally, the learners pointed out the necessity of planning time. As a result, I
adjusted the task procedures. As a five-minute pre-task, after receiving the choice of topics, theparticipants completed individual written planning activities, during which they were allowed to use a
dictionary. Following the pre-task, they were asked to write on a topic as much as possible for 15
minutes, which I extended from 10 minutes. It may be possible that having planning time enabled thestudents to improve their fluency (Ellis, 2005).
Based on the empirical data that the intermediate JFL learners demonstrated improvement influency and syntactic complexity to a moderate or large degree, it may be assumed that the essay topics
used for the current study were effective and potentially posed the right amount of cognitive demands
for this type of task for the intermediate learners. The topics used in Nitta and Baba’s study (2014) werevarious types of topics which seemed to be quite difficult for intermediate JFL learners; therefore, thecurrent study used the two types of writing tasks with topics that were different from those used by
Nitta and Baba. Specifically, I carefully chose and adapted topics from introductory Japanese language
textbooks. As a result, the JFL learners were able to focus on improving their writing, and their fluency
and syntactic complexity progressed simultaneously.
32

With regard to lexical diversity, Measurement 7 (the total number of kanji) demonstrated
considerable progress in both descriptive and argumentative essays. In other words, the JFL learners
attempted to write more kanji in the last essays compared with the first essays. However, the results of
Measurement 8 (kanji-by-ratio) showed no statistically significant differences. One explanation could bethat this study only counted the number of kanji in the total number of characters for each written
composition. Thus, future studies should employ more sensitive measurements such as type-token ratio,
which can be calculated by dividing the types (the total number of different kanji) in the tokens (thetotal number of kanji).
As another interesting finding in this study, the effect sizes demonstrated some differences inL2 writing development between the two types of essays. Regarding the descriptive essays, the learners
improved the number of bunsetsu, the number of bunsetsu per sentence, and the number of S-nodes
per T-unit with a large effect size (r ≥ .6). On the other hand, for the argumentative essays, the learners
improved them with a medium effect size. These results may be due to the learners needing more timefor effective writing of argumentative essays than descriptive essays. In connection with the Cognition
Hypothesis, it can be presumed that the argumentative essays posed higher cognitive demands byrequiring the learners to describe their rational thoughts. As a result, the learners might also be pushed
to focus on producing complex and accurate L2 output over a longer period of time. Therefore, further
investigation should be conducted to clarify this issue.
Conclusion
This study reported preliminary results and findings which compared JFL learners’ written
pretest and posttest compositions from one 16-week semester. Although the researcher is currently
examining L2 writing development over the entire academic year, the preliminary findings have alreadydemonstrated promising results indicating that task repetition is likely to push “learners improve theirperformances by allowing them to activate, refine, and optimize their linguistic resources for the
purpose of successfully completing a given task” (Lambert, Kormos, & Minn, 2017, p. 169). It was foundthat among the eight indices of writing performance, fluency and syntactic complexity improved to amoderate or a large degree. This study also identified some differences in L2 writing development
depending on the essay types. Thus, this study highlighted the importance of considering the complexity(or genre) of writing tasks in order to assess L2 writing development appropriately.
This study reported on a preliminary attempt to examine L2 writing development over one
academic semester and mainly focused on linguistic complexity and fluency. Therefore, some limitations
need to be acknowledged. First, in relation to the Cognition Hypothesis, it would be necessary to look at
accuracy measures because, despite the smaller effect sizes of fluency and complexity in theargumentative essays compared to those in the descriptive essays, the learners might have paid more
attention to the accuracy aspects of their written production.
Second, in addition to indices for identifying linguistic features of performance data, thewriting performance should also be evaluated in terms of communicative adequacy (Pallotti, 2009).
Pallotti defines communicative adequacy as “the degree to which a learners’ performance is more orless successful in achieving the task’s goals efficiently” (p. 596). For example, the writing products could
be assessed qualitatively by Japanese native speakers to examine whether the contents of theircompositions could be understood by the readers efficiently. The measurements of accuracy andcommunicative adequacy are currently under investigation and will be reported in a future study.
Additionally, to better appreciate how the CALF measures changed throughout one term or the entire
academic year, it is also important to examine how these linguistic features developed from a dynamic
33

systems perspective (Larsen-Freeman, 2006; Nitta & Baba, 2014). Further analysis should explore in
more detail how the CALF measures changed over time.
Third, this study has just begun revealing unique differences in JFL learners’ L2 writing
development by employing two types of writing tasks and also confirmed the importance of considering
the complexity or genre of writing tasks in order to assess L2 writing development appropriately. Futurestudies could use other types of writing tasks to further understand the effect of task complexity/genre
on L2 writing performance. For instance, researchers can ask learners to describe a summary of a(un)structured story or write a report based on visual information, such as pictures, graphs, and charts.
Finally, future studies should also consider whether other factors, besides task repetition alone, may
have contributed to the gains made. Throughout the semester, the participants in this study had plentyof opportunities to engage in various classroom activities, such as input, output, and interactive tasks,
and they also completed grammar exercises as homework assignments. Therefore, these tasks may also
have potentially catalyzed the improvement in the students’ L2 writing performance. For future
research, it would be worth examining whether learners who are not receiving formal instruction (e.g.,
Japanese 301) might also benefit from repeating writing tasks.
References
Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M. Bygate,
P. Skehan & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching
and testing (pp. 23–48). Harlow, England: Pearson Education.
Bygate, M., & Samuda, V. (2005). Integrative planning through the use of task repetition. In R. Ellis (Ed.)
Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 37–74). Amsterdam, Netherlands:
Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.05byg
Ellis, R. (Ed.). (2005). Planning and task-performance in a second language. Amsterdam, Netherlands:
Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11
Hunt, K. W. (1977). Early blooming and late blooming syntactical structures. In C. R. Cooper & L. Odell(Eds.), Evaluating writing (pp. 90–104). Buffalo: State University of New York.
Ishibashi, R. (2012). Dainigengo niyoru sakubun sanshutsu no ninchishinrigakuteki kenkyu [Cognitive
psychology studies on second language written production]. Tokyo: Kazama Shobo.
Kurohashi, S., & Nagao, M. (1998). Building a Japanese parsed corpus while improving the parsing
system. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Language Resources & Evaluation(pp. 719–724).
Lambert, C., Kormos, J., & Minn, D. (2017). Task repetition and second language speech processing.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 167–196.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263116000085
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written
production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27, 590–619.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml029
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2009). Adjusting expectations: The study of complexity, accuracy, and fluency insecond language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30, 579–589.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp043
Lee, N. (2006). Ryu&gakuse& no kaku nihongo ikenbun no bunseki: Nihonjin gakuse& tono hikaku nioite[Analysis of Japanese argumentative essays written by international students: A comparison
with Japanese students]. Ritsumeikan hogaku bessatsu: Kotoba to sono hirogari, 4, 399–412.

34

Manchón, R. M. (2014). The distinctive nature of task repetition in writing. Implications for theory,
research, and pedagogy. Estudios de Lingüística Inglesa Aplicada, 14, 13–41.
https://doi.org/10.12795/elia.2014.i14.02
Nitta, R., & Baba, K. (2014). Task repetition and L2 writing development: A longitudinal study from a
dynamic systems perspective. In H. Byrnes & R. M. Manchón (Eds.), Task-based language
learning: Insights to and from writing (pp. 107–136). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Benjamins.
https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.7.05nit
Ortega, L. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research
synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 24, 492–518.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.4.492
Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30, 590–
601. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp045
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language
Learning, 64, 878–912. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12079
Polio, C., & Friedman, D. A. (2016). Understanding, evaluating, and conducting second language writing
research. New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315747293
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for
examining task influences on SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language
instruction (pp. 287–318). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524780.012
Tsujimura, N. (2014). An introduction to Japanese linguistics (3rd ed.). West Sussex, England: WileyBlackwell.
Weigle, S. C. (2006). Investing in assessment: Designing tests to promote positive washback. In P. K.
Matsuda, C. Ortmeier-Hooper & X. You (Eds.), The politics of second language writing: In searchof the promised land (pp. 222–244). West Lafayette, IN: Parlor.
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H.-Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measuresof fluency, accuracy, and complexity. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.

35

Appendix A
A Sample Essay

36

Appendix B
Essay Topics
I created all the topics used for this study. Since the writing tasks were conducted as independent tasks,
these topics were not directly related to the activities in the JPNS 301 class. Next, I randomly assigned
the descriptive essay topics and argumentative essay topics for each essay type’s week, though thestudents were given a choice of topics. Both the instruction and the topics were provided in Japanese
only.
Table B1
The three writing task topics provided each time
Instruction

TopicsNumber of learners
selected the topic

First essays
Descriptive essay
Give a detailed description of:

Argumentative essay
What do you think about (topic)?
What are the pros and cons?
Describe your reasons andopinions.

My typical day(私の一日)
My favourite animal(私の好きな動物)
What I want to do this weekend(私が週末にしたいこと)
What I used to be and what I am now(前の私と今の私)
Drinking alcohol(お酒を飲む)Living in foreign countries(外国に住む)

6
8
15
3
10
16

Last essays
Descriptive essay
Give a detailed description of:

Argumentative essay
What do you think about (topic)?
What are the pros and cons?
Describe your reasons andopinions.

What I am not good at(私の苦手なこと)
My favourite sport(私の好きなスポーツ)
My favourite season(私の好きな季節)
Continuing university studies(学生をつづける)
Owning a gun(銃を持つ)
Living in the countryside(田舎に住む)

6
7
16
4
10
15

37

Chapter 4
Authentic Application of TBLT in Japan
Jenny Numadate(Ibaraki Christian University, Japan)
Abstract
Task-based language teaching (TBLT) has been hailed as an effective framework for teaching authentic
use of language in recent years. However, one of the criticisms of TBLT in EFL (English as a foreign
language) environments is its lack of application outside the classroom, where the target language andthe skills used to complete the task are rarely needed. This paper will define tasks, explain a task withreal-world purposes in an EFL context, and discuss whether the task meets the criteria defined earlier.
Using a simulated situation, namely finding employment, third- and fourth-year English majors in a
Japanese university learned skills to prepare for the job market. Over the course of four weeks, students
took on two roles, employees and employers, to foster insight on the job-hunting process. They learned
how to brainstorm criteria related to the process as potential employees, how to prepare questions
related to those criteria, and considered how to predict and answer questions possibly posed during a
job interview. In the employers’ roles, students collaborated to create a company, considered whatcriteria they would use to choose employees, and learned how to ask questions to determine whether
candidates fit those criteria. A simulated job-fair activity in the final session asked students to act as
employees and employers consecutively, helping them holistically understand the employment process
and how to negotiate difficult questions likely asked in a real interview. In addition to improving English
communication skills, the concepts introduced can be applied to various situations for finding
employment both within Japan and abroad.
Keywords: English-as-a-foreign-language; Japan; mixed-level classes; job-hunting; Task-Based Language
Teaching
In English as a second language (ESL) environments, students have ample opportunity to use thelanguage, concepts and skills learned inside the classroom in their daily lives outside in the real world.
However, in English as a foreign language (EFL) environments like Japan, where foreign languages are
rarely needed outside school settings, the effectiveness of TBLT has been questioned (Sato, 2010; Swan,
2005). This paper describes a job-fair activity and will discuss whether it is a task according to accepted
definitions as well as if it can be considered authentic, which means the task should introduce not only
language, but also concepts and skills that can be applied outside educational environments.
Task-Based Language Teaching: Overview
Tasks have been defined in various ways. Ellis (2003), stated that tasks are activities that callprimarily for meaning-focused language use, they provide little or no language to help in completion of
the activity, they allow freedom in language forms used to complete the activity, and they haveoutcomes that can be evaluated and that they have real-world relationships. Nunan (2004) defined tasks
as activities that involve learners using the target language in order to express meaning, rather thanform. Skehan (1998) said that tasks must have goals that need to be worked on while Prabhu (1987)
emphasized that they should involve learners in reasoning and problem solving. Long and Crookes(1992) also stated that tasks should have a pedagogical relationship to the real world.
38

Tasks can help learners of different levels improve their language production. In mixed-levelclasses, students are exposed to different levels of the target language, which enables lower-level
students to learn what more proficient learners say, while offering advanced students the opportunity
to learn how to explain ideas more simply to ensure communication (Willis, 1996).
As Long (1996) stated in his interaction hypothesis, interaction through conversation promotes
language learning. In situations with learners of different proficiency levels, negotiation for meaning will
likely occur, resulting in communicative competence. Negotiation also involves reasoning and problem
solving, and Prabhu (1987) noted that this creates ideal conditions for language learning.
Planning during the pre-task phase is also an important aspect of TBLT. Giving students time toprepare questions by writing them out allows them to carefully think about what they want to say andhave time to consider the grammar (Willis & Willis, 2007). However, allowing spontaneouscommunication to occur during the task phase is also beneficial because it exposes students tosituations they will encounter in real life (Willis, 1996).
The job-fair task presented in this paper attempts to operationalize the definitions of tasks as
stated above in a mixed-level class. During this task, the use of planning, prediction and negotiation was
thought to teach students skills needed to prepare for a real-world situation, even in an EFL
environment such as Japan.
Job-Fair Task
This job-fair task aimed to teach students how to come up with important criteria they should
consider when they begin to look for employment. It was designed to teach them how to evaluate
criteria, predict questions and answers that might be offered in an interview setting, as well as how tonegotiate and respond to questions and answers on the spot. Through role-play activities from both theemployer and employee perspectives, students were encouraged to consider the aspects of looking fora job from both sides of the hiring process. With the ultimate goal of getting hired by the company theywanted, or hiring the employee they wanted, the task resulted in an exciting, authentic activity forstudents.
Students
36 third and fourth year English majors at a private university in Eastern Japan participated inthis task. Most of the students (N=32) were born and raised in Japan, while four students, who came to
Japan for study abroad, were each from different countries in Asia. The Japanese students had studied
English for at least eight years and ranged from A2 to C1 on the Common European Framework ofReference for Languages (CEFR) scale (Council of Europe, 2001) based on scores from a placement test
administered at the beginning of the school year. The international students were advanced in English
and had intermediate to advanced proficiency in Japanese, ranging from N3 to N1 on the JapaneseProficiency Language Test. At the time of their participation in the task, the Japanese students were justabout to start looking for employment, within the next six months or so. For this task, the students weredivided into eight groups of four to five students each.
Task proceduresThis task was part of an elective Discussion class taught for 90 minutes per week for a fifteenweek semester. The job-fair task—adapted from LeBeau and Harrington (2006)—was completed overfour weeks, with the first three weeks used for preparation and the final week used for the job-fairsimulation. The process, as summarized in Table 1, is described below in detail. The students remainedin the same groups throughout the four-week process.
39

Table 1
Outline of Schedule for Preparation and Execution of Job-Fair Simulation
Week number
Activity1
Prepare as an employee: Brainstorm and select employee criteria, develop
questions2
Prepare as an employer: Create company profile / Brainstorm and selectemployer criteria
3Prepare as an employer: Develop questions for chosen criteria from employer
perspective
4
Job-fair task simulation
Week 1: Prepare as an employee. The students were randomly arranged into groups of four or
five, and each group was asked to brainstorm all the criteria they could think of related to what theymight want in a job. They wrote their ideas in English on a piece of paper, but they were allowed to
speak in Japanese. While they helped each other with vocabulary, the teacher offered suggestions when
they could not find the correct term. After each group developed about 15 criteria, the teacher asked
each student to independently choose the five most important criteria they wanted to focus on and talkabout in a job interview. Reported criteria examples included:salary, benefits, working hours, location, housing, uniforms, holidays, transportation subsidies, women’sdays, maternity leave, possibility for transfer, discounts, pension plans, and promotion opportunities.
After choosing their criteria, the teacher instructed students to think of open-ended (i.e., notyes/no) questions or statements to ask the employers in order to determine if a company will meet theirneeds. Each student thought of questions related to the five criteria they chose. Reported question
examples included:
Salary – How much is the monthly salary?
Benefits – What kind of health benefits do you offer?
Transfer possibility – How often do employees get transferred to other areas?
Location – Where is your company located?
Housing – Please tell me what kind of housing is available for employees.
While formulating the questions, students worked in groups and asked each other about
grammar, spelling and vocabulary. Because the groups were randomly assigned, lower-level students
could learn from higher-level students without relying on the teacher. The presence of the international
students also increased cultural awareness because these students had different ideas than Japanese
students about what is important when looking for a job. Additionally, through the process of writing
their questions, the students learned how to predict what the answer might be. This ability helped
prepare them for negotiations that were needed in the final stage when the simulated job interview
took place.
Week 2: Prepare as an employer (company profile). Each group was asked to brainstorm all thecriteria they thought were important as a company for hiring an employee. Again, they were allowed to
discuss in Japanese, but they were instructed to write all the ideas down on a piece of paper in English.
Reported criteria examples included: diligent, punctual, communication skills, computer skills,
presentation skills flexible, willing to transfer, willing to travel, responsible, creative, able to come up
with new ideas, independent, and friendly.
As can be seen, the criteria the students produced as employers were very different than thecriteria they contrived as employees. Students noticed this discrepancy and became aware of the40differences in expectations. This awareness made them realize what they might have to think about
when they started to look for employment in the near future.
After brainstorming about 15 criteria, each group was asked to create a company. They wereasked to decide what kind of company they wanted to be, including the name, and then were asked tomake a profile sheet (Figure 1) considering the criteria they brainstormed as employers. The teacher
also asked them to refer to the criteria that they thought of as employees to elicit questions they might
be asked to enhance prediction skills. If they could predict what they might be asked by prospective
employees, they would be able to better prepare for the job fair. There was no required minimum or
maximum for the information on the profile, but after considering all the criteria from both
perspectives, the students were able to make detailed profiles. Companies were instructed to make asign with the name of the company so the employees would know this information during the job-fairtask.

HOSHIBUCKS
Coffee shop
Years in business: 17
Employees: 35
Wages: ¥250000/mo.
Benefits: health, pension
Transportation: ¥10000/mo.
Housing: company housing
Bonus: twice a year
Location:
all overtask
Japan
Figure 1. Sample company profile used during
the job-fairfor employees to learn about thecompany.
Job description: customer service,
barista
Week 3: Prepare as an employer (interview). During the final preparation class, groups wereasked to decide which criteria from the list created the week before were most important for theircompany. Because each group had a different type of company, their criteria differed from othergroups. After choosing five criteria, they were asked to write open-ended questions to ask prospective
employees at the job fair. Again, the teacher suggested using open-ended questions in order to promote
communication and introduce unpredictability akin to real-world job interviews. If closed-ended
questions are asked, the answer will simply be yes or no and the conversation will not progress. By
limiting the students to open-ended questions, they will encounter difficulty predicting all the possible
answers. This is one of the important factors in designing tasks, introducing opportunities fornegotiation. Negotiation is necessary for communicative competence as suggested through theinteraction hypothesis (Long, 1996). With open questions that cannot be answered easily or quickly, thestudents will have to spontaneously react to each situation accordingly, relying on their linguisticknowledge to successfully communicate their opinions or information. Reported question examples
included:41Creative – What ideas do you have for our company?
Responsible – What do you do in your part-time job?
Friendly – What kinds of club activities are you doing at university?
Willingness to Transfer – What area of Japan would you like to live in?
Punctual – What time do you get up in the morning on school days?
Week 4: The job-fair task. Tables or desks were arranged so that there were eight companies
with four (or five) seats at each table. Each group set up their company with the profile sheet, the nameof the company and the employee assessment sheets (Figure 2).
Groups were then split into two pairs (or a pair and one set of three if the original group had 5
students). The A pair stayed at the company to interview prospective employees. The B pair rotatedaround to all the other companies. As each student was required to independently find the company
they wanted to work at, the pair did not necessarily have to rotate together, but for logistic purposes, it
was thought to be easier to have each pair visit the companies at the same time. The B students were
given an employer assessment sheet (Figure 3) to make notes about each of the different companies
they visited. They were also asked to make note of the questions that they wanted to ask (determined in
the preparation stage).

Figure 2. Employee assessment sheet used by companies to record information about prospective
employees.

42Figure 3. Employer assessment sheet used by employees to record information about companies they
visit.
The students were given five minutes to hold their first interview sessions. Depending on thenumber of groups and the length of a class, this time can be adjusted. The teacher then set a timer andthe interviews began. During the interview process, the employers, (A pair) were expected to explain
their company, ask questions to prospective employees related to their criteria, and make brief notes
about each employee. The employees (B pair) needed to find out information, ask the questions they
prepared, and make brief notes about the company. The interviews were expected to be done
completely in English with the teacher monitoring the activity. Notetaking can be done in the native
language for time-saving purposes if the students are unable to write quickly in English. After fiveminutes, the timer rang and the B pairs moved to another company. After everyone was seated, thetimer was reset for five minutes. This process was repeated for a total of seven interview sessions sothat every employee (B pair) had an opportunity to go to each company (A pair).
43

Then, the A and B pairs were asked to switch roles. The process was repeated until every
student visited every company except their own. The A pairs returned to their groups and as a group,
the company reviewed their notes about each employee and decided who to choose to hire based on
who met their criteria the most. Then, each student was asked to independently review their notes
about each company and decide which one best met their criteria and would therefore like to work for.
In the final stage of the task, the teacher then asked each company which employee theywanted to hire. If the employee also wanted to work for that company, there was a match and thestudent was ‘hired.’ If not, the teacher moved on to the next company to check whether there was amatch. This continued until all companies stated their preferred employee. If a match was made, it
indicated that the students were able to communicate well and successfully negotiate to state theirpreference.
Due to time constraints (the class was only 90 minutes), there was no time for post-task
activities or review during the class. However, in future classes or at the end of the semester, theteacher can ask students to reflect on this task to determine whether they feel they could communicate
effectively or if the task is applicable or helpful for their future.
Task Validity
To determine whether this activity can be considered a task, it was analyzed according to thedefinitions stated previously. Then, if it can be considered a task, does it provide an authentic content
that can be applied in an EFL setting? As Ellis (2003) and Nunan (2004) have stated, a task must be
meaning-focused instead of form-focused. This activity adheres to this definition. The focus is on using
language to ‘get a job’ or ‘hire an employee.’ Students must use language to convey meaning by asking
and answering questions and do not focus on grammar, as long as they can make themselves
understood. Ellis (2003) stated that there should be little or no language provided by the teacher andthe students should be free to choose which language they want to use to complete the activity. In thisactivity, except for the instruction to use open-ended questions and some small corrections suggestedby the teacher to avoid miscommunication, there was little language instruction. The students
communicated and negotiated with each other in every stage, using any language forms they saw fit.
Skehan (1998) insisted that tasks should have goals to be worked on. This activity indeed has the clear
goals of ‘getting a job’ and ‘hiring an employee.’ Prabhu (1987) mentioned that tasks must include
problem solving and reasoning. During the job fair, the students participated in simulated job interviews.
They were asked questions that they had not be informed of previously and answered them within ashort time. This forced the students to spontaneously solve issues regarding communication andnegotiate their position with the companies. When the students tried to appeal to the company they
liked, they might have changed their criteria slightly to adhere to what the company wanted. This
negotiation falls within the definition offered by Prabhu. Finally, Ellis (2003) stated that the task musthave real-world relationships while Long and Crooks (1992) suggested that a task must have pedagogicalrelationships to the real world. In Japan, almost all third- and fourth-year university students are
expected to find a job. This task, a simulated job fair, provides a real-world situation. By communicatingwith various people with the aim of being ‘hired,’ and by preparing for both the employer and employee
roles, students learn what they should think about when looking for employment from multiple aspects.
They learn how to predict, negotiate, and deal with communication issues. This job-fair activity clearlyadheres to all the definitions and can therefore be defined as a task.
As this task is done using a foreign language, in this case English, can it be considered authentic?
This task simulates a real-world situation, getting a job. However, in Japan, most interviews or job
explanations are conducted in Japanese, so is there a point to using the target language to do this task?
44

In this case, this class was part of a curriculum for English majors so the students were motivated andused to using the foreign language in the classroom. Additionally, there were four non-Japaneseexchange students so using English as the common language was expected. Some students were looking
for employment opportunities overseas and for those who were planning on working locally, they had toconsider the recent trends to make English the operating language of companies in Japan. Companies
such as Rakuten, Softbank and Uniqlo already have these policies in place (Borzykowski, 2017), while
Honda will start an English-only policy in 2020 ("Honda," 2015). Students may be asked about or have toprove their English ability when applying for jobs to these companies so practicing a task such as the one
described above in English, will help them prepare for employment at a company with a global outlook.
By offering the students a chance to consider the criteria they want to focus on to get a job, and giving
them the chance to consider it from the employers side as well, this task will open their eyes to the jobfinding process from both sides and better prepare them for employment.
Alternate Task Options
This task can be adjusted in various ways to accommodate different purposes and levels ofstudents. To make it easier for low-level students or non-English majors, the teacher can offer a list of
criteria that the students can choose from. The students would still have freedom to create their own
questions but the onus of coming up with everything would be reduced. For some criteria, closed-ended
questions (yes/no answers) could also be allowed. Additionally, the companies could be created by theteacher beforehand to make the task shorter or less labor-intensive for the students.
To make the task more realistic, real job advertisements from the university career center could
be used. Showing students what is actually necessary to get hired at various companies might better
prepare them for employment. Although this is more realistic, it is not as fun and does not allow thestudents freedom to consider criteria from the employers side.
This task was done during a four-week period but if time permits, it can be extended to five
weeks by doing the final stage (the job fair) over two weeks. The students would remain in the samerole the first week and switch in the second week. This would allow more time for each interview, which
could be increased from five to ten minutes, allowing for more communication and time for negotiation.
However, the students would have time to reflect on the task the first week and may prepare more forthe second week. This could reduce some of the spontaneity and may lead to students trying tomemorize their questions or answers.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this job-fair task provided a way for university students to learn language, skills
and techniques related to finding employment in an authentic situation. They learned how tobrainstorm criteria, determine which criteria are important, formulate questions, and predict answers.
They also learned how to negotiate, communicate their opinions and react quickly to open-ended
questions. These skills are indispensable when looking for a job after they graduate.
References
Borzykowski, B. (2017, March 20). The international companies using only English. BBC. Retrieved fromhttp://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20170317-the-international-companies-using-only-english
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning,teaching, assessment. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language teaching and learning. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
45

Honda makes English official. (2015, July 18). The Japan Times. Retrieved fromhttps://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2015/07/18/editorials/honda-makes-englishofficial/#.W0hKVi2B0Q8
LeBeau, C., & Harrington, D. (2006). Discussion process and principles. Las Vegas, Nevada: Language
Solutions Inc.
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie &T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York, NY:
Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012589042-7/50015-3
Long, M. H., & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly, 26,
27–56. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587368
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667336
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Sato, R. (2010). Reconsidering the effectiveness and suitability of PPP and TBLT in the Japanese EFL
classroom. JALT Journal, 32, 189–200.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Swan, M. (2005). Legislation by hypothesis: The case of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 26,
376–401. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami013
Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow, England: Longman.

46

Chapter 5
Bridging the Gap Between Teacher and Student Perspectives
of TBLT in the Japanese EFL Classroom
Shizuka Brooks(Temple University, Japan Campus)
Abstract
Task-based language teaching (TBLT) has been popular in Japan for over two decades (Nunan, 2003).
With the recent increased emphasis on communicative skills (MEXT, 2013) more and more teachers inJapan are becoming interested in TBLT. However, because TBLT focuses on goals, procedures, andoutcomes that are often very different from the regular teacher-centered approach found in mostJapanese classrooms, some researchers worry that this approach to language teaching may be difficult
for many Japanese students to grasp. This article anticipates potential problems that may occur whenusing different types of tasks (i.e., discussions, presentations, and peer review tasks) in a language
classroom in Japan. It then suggests some possible solutions to these problems. To do this, the article
draws upon interviews with four English language teachers working in Japan and the author’s own
experience as both a teacher and a student in Japan.
Keywords: discussions; peer review; presentations; Task-Based Language Teaching; teacher beliefs
With the introduction of the new course of study by the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sport and Technology (MEXT) in 2013 there has been an increased focus on a more communicative
approach to language teaching in Japan (Kotaka, 2013). Prior to this, the focus of English language
classes in most high schools and junior high schools in Japan tended to be on teaching students English
grammar and vocabulary (although communication-based activities might also have had a small role toplay). Most teachers did this using a present, practice, produce (PPP) method (Dickinson, 2010).
However, the PPP approach to teaching English has been criticized for being incompatible with
developing students’ communicative competence (Ellis, 2000). One methodology that has beensuggested as an alternative to this approach and as a way of improving students’ communicativecompetence is task-based language teaching (TBLT). There are two types of TBLT that are used inlanguage classrooms in Japan, a strong version (Willis, 1996) and a weaker version (Ellis, 2003),
sometimes referred to as task supported language teaching.
While there are many potential benefits with using TBLT in the Japanese EFL classroom, someresearchers have expressed concern over how appropriate TBLT is for the Japanese context (e.g.,
Burrows, 2008). In particular, researchers have discussed potential problems involved with
implementing this type of approach in English language classrooms in Japan. These problems include thetime constraints and large class sizes most Japanese English teachers have to deal with (Butler, 2011) as
well as concerns about how well TBLT prepares students for their important university entrance exams(Sato, 2009). One of the major issues involved in using TBLT in Japanese EFL classrooms is that there are
significant differences between the teacher-centered approach to language teaching that students areused to and the more student-centered approach of TBLT. This means that students are often unsure
about how to complete the tasks they are being asked to do in the TBLT classroom (Burrows, 2008).
In this paper, I will provide some background into the possible benefits and problems of using
TBLT in the Japanese context. I will then look at three common tasks that are used in many language47

classrooms in Japan: discussion tasks, presentation tasks, and peer review tasks. I will focus on the
differences between the teachers’ and students’ perception of these tasks and the problems that can
result from the gap between these two perspectives. Finally, I will look at some possible solutions that
may be able to help teachers to bridge this gap. In order to discuss these tasks, I will make use of myown experiences as both a student and a teacher in Japan and data collected from four semi-structured
interviews conducted with university teachers working at different universities in the Kansai area.
Background of the Project
Task Based Language Teaching
TBLT gained popularity in the 1980s as a response to the more form focused approach of PPP(Willis & Willis, 2009). The problem that many practitioners had with PPP is that they felt it treatedlanguage as an object for study rather than a tool for communication (Ellis, 2003). While communicative
language teaching (CLT) was also developed as a way to have students focus more on thecommunicative functions of language learning, many researchers felt that CLT did not go far enough inallowing students to use the language in an authentic way. For example, Samuda and Bygate (2008)
expressed their skepticism over CLT materials because they “continued to reflect a view of learning as a
gradual accretion of individual, pre-selected items, mediated through orchestrated pedagogicalsequences” (p. 56). TBLT was seen as a way to correct this problem because in the TBLT classroom, tasks
are used not merely as a method of practicing pre-taught language forms but as a way for students tointeract with each other by having them use language to actually complete a task. Fotos (2002)
explained that tasks are an effective way to teach a language because they “supply the learner withtarget language input that is rich in communicative usages of problematic target structures, and task
performance provides opportunities for the type of learner interaction suggested to promote language
acquisition” (p. 138). While students are not explicitly taught language forms as part of the task, thefeedback they receive on the language they produce while completing the task and the ability of thelearner to notice gaps in their linguistic knowledge means that TBLT can help students to improve theiraccuracy as well as their fluency (Carrol & Swain, 1993).
Researchers often divide TBLT into two different types, the strong and weak versions of TBLT
(Skehan, 2009). In the strong form of TBLT, the entire curriculum is designed around tasks instead ofaround the form or function of the language (Brown & Lee, 2015). Skehan (2009) describes the weakform of TBLT as a teaching style that embeds tasks in to a “more complex pedagogical context” (p. 84).
The tasks used in the weaker form of TBLT still need to be authentic activities where the focus is on themeaning, not the language, and students should still be assessed on how well they complete the task
not on how grammatically correct they are (Skehan, 2009). However, this weaker form of TBLT allows
for much more flexibility and it is easier for Japanese teachers to integrate this type of TBLT into their
existing classes.
The Current Situation of TBLT in Japan
More and more teachers in Japan are making use of the weaker form of TBLT and are trying tointegrate tasks into their existing classes (Butler, 2011). There are a number of reasons why TBLT is
becoming more popular in Japan. First of all, in MEXT’s newly released course of study (MEXT, 2013)
there is a much greater emphasis on communicative competence. This is because the current form
focused method of teaching English in Japan does not do a good job of teaching students how tocommunicate in English. Despite having studied English for six or more years, most Japanese students
are still not confident using English to communicate (Dickinson, 2010). Another reason that TBLT andtasks are becoming more popular in Japan is that researchers are beginning to recognize that the form48

focused, non-communicative approach to teaching English found in many classrooms in Japan can bedemotivating for Japanese students (Kikuchi & Sakai, 2009).
Problems With Using TBLT in Japan
While there are many benefits with using TBLT in Japanese EFL classes there are also somepotential problems. The biggest issue with using TBLT in Japan is that the student-centered approach to
TBLT is very different from the teacher-centered approach that students are used to from their previous
language classes and from their other subjects (Sato, 2009). This can be a problem because students
often feel dissatisfied if the way they are being taught does not meet their expectations (Burrows,2008). Anecdotally, Japanese students often feel that they are not learning if they are not being
explicitly taught grammar or vocabulary.
This mismatch between what students believe a language class should be like and what isrequired of them in a task-based language class can make students reluctant to participate in theclassroom (Burrows, 2008). Students may also be unwilling to participate in the classroom because they
do not see the need for English and are, therefore, not willing to make an effort in the class. Researchdone by Tani-Fukuchi and Sakamoto (2005) supports this idea. Their study found that rural students
were much less willing to participate in the English language classroom than urban students. Theysuggested that was because there were less chances for rural students to use English outside theclassroom, so they did not feel it was as useful for them. Because there is such a focus oncommunication in TBLT, it is important that students are willing and motivated to try the tasks they arebeing given.
Another problem with using TBLT in Japan is that one of the most important reasons forJapanese students to study English in high school and junior high school is in order to pass thecompetitive university entrance exams (Butler & Iino, 2005). Even university students often see the main
goal of their university English classes as improving their TOEIC scores so that they can find a good job.
The requirement for students to pass summative, norm-referenced, and knowledge-based exams makes
it hard for teachers to use more communicative approaches, such as TBLT, in their classes (Littlewood,2007).
In the next part of this paper, I will argue that the solution to many of these problems is not toavoid using TBLT in the Japanese English language classroom, but to rather scaffold it in a way thatmeets the needs of our students. Teachers need to be aware of their students’ expectations and thepotential problems Japanese students may experience when doing tasks in the classroom. In order to do
this, I will look at three tasks and explain the benefits of these tasks from a pedagogical perspective,
problems students are likely to have with these tasks, and how we can avoid these problems.
Methods
Participants
The participants of this study were four English language teachers who were working atuniversities in the Kansai area at the time of the study (see Table 1). When recruiting participants, two
factors were taken into consideration. Firstly, all four participants had indicated that they were using
tasks in their university English classes and that they were willing to participate in this research project.
Secondly, an attempt was made to interview an even number of both Japanese nationals and native
English speakers, given potential differences between the two groups. In terms of their schools, Mr.
Smith (all names are pseudonyms) worked in a private university with a high level of admission
standards. Ms. Sato and Ms. Jones worked in a school that had lower student admission standards,
though Ms. Jones worked with English language majors who were generally more motivated and had a49higher level of English than the general students. Ms. Suzuki worked part-time at a number ofuniversities in the Kansai area.
Table 1
Teachers’ Backgrounds
TeacherNationality

Mr. Smith

Canadian

Ms. Jones
Ms. Sato
Ms. Suzuki

BritishJapaneseJapanese

Qualifications

MA (currently enrolled in a PhD
program) in Applied Linguistics
MA in Intercultural Communication
MA in Foreign Language Education
M.S.Ed. with a Concentration in
TESOL

Teaching experience (years)
At the university
Englishlevel in Japan
21
15
13
12
14

8
3
5

Data Collection and Analysis
The interviews were done individually, using a semi-structured interview protocol as describedby Richards (2009). This was done in order to give the interviewer and interviewees some flexibility tofocus on the themes and ideas that they thought were important for their teaching context. The
questions were e-mailed to the interviewees beforehand, in order to allow them to prepare for theinterviews. The interview questions can be found in the Appendix. The author met with each participant
one by one. Each interview took between 30 minutes to just over 1 hour.
The first three sections of the interview focused on three different types of tasks; discussions,presentations, and peer review. While multiple definitions of tasks exist in the literature (Zeng & Borg,
2014), for this paper the definition given by Samuda and Bygate (2008) was used. These researchers
define a task as an “activity which engages language use in order to achieve some non-linguistic
outcome while meeting a linguistic challenge, with the overall aim of promoting language learning,
through process or product or both” (Samuda & Bygate, 2008, p. 69). These three tasks were chosen by
the author because they are thought to be the tasks that are commonly used in the university English
classrooms in Japan.
During the interview, in response to the first three sections of the interview questions, theteachers discussed if and how they implemented each of the three tasks in their classes and provided
the reasons why they used that particular type of task in their classes along with any benefits they feltthat the task may have had for the students. The final section of the interview had teachers discuss anyother types of tasks that they had used in the classroom.
All the participants were interviewed in their first language (English or Japanese), and theinterviews were recorded (with the permission of the participants). The interviews were thentranscribed by the author; the relevant parts of the Japanese interviews were also translated into
English by the author.
Participants’ comments were organized according to the three task types that the teachers wereasked to comment on during the interviews. Their answers were then examined together for each of thetasks to look for common trends between the four teachers. The focus was on trying to identify
commonalities between the four teachers as to how they carried out the task in their classrooms andwhy they felt that the task would be beneficial for their students, separately for each of the three tasks.

50

Results
The next section summarizes the results of the interviews. It looks at the different tasks that theteachers said that they used in their classrooms and explains how they went about setting up thesetasks. It also surveys the reasons that the teachers gave for using these tasks.
Discussion Tasks
One very common task that can be used in the language classroom is a discussion-based task.
The four teachers all said that they had used some kind of discussion tasks in their classes where focus
was on having the students share information with one another orally. The most common type of
discussion task used by the teachers was a jigsaw task with all four of the teachers I interviewed sayingthat they had used some variation of the task in their classes. The approach that Mr. Smith (pseudonym)
described represents a common way to do a jigsaw task, though the details varied slightly from teacher
to teacher from the interview. Mr. Smith said that he put his students into groups of four the week
before the task and gave each of the students a different article to read about a similar topic. Students
were asked to go home and read the article before the next class and to answer some basic
comprehension questions about the article. In the next class, they were then in charge of introducing
and explaining that article to their group and leading a discussion about the topic discussed in thearticle.
Some of the reasons that the teachers gave for using this type of activity in the classroom wasthat it was a way for students to receive both meaning-focused input and engage in meaning-focused
output. For example, Ms. Sato said that her students participate more, and have more authentic
conversations if there is a clear focus to the task and students are able to prepare for the task on theirown before coming to class. She also said that teaching students useful expressions and the vocabularythat they need for the activity allowed for the discussions to go more smoothly. The teachers also said
that they found that these types of tasks were easy to set up and explain to the students. Finally, theteachers saw discussion tasks as a good example of communication-based tasks because the focus of
the activity was on having students share information. Students were presenting to their classmates andwere not graded or judged by the teacher on the correctness of their grammar.
Presentation Tasks
The second task that teachers were asked to comment on was presentations. Even in generalcommunicative English classes, three of the four teachers I interviewed reported using presentations in
the class. The other teacher did not teach a presentation class and she felt that the level of her students
was too low to benefit from doing presentations in front of the class. Ms. Jones explained the steps thatshe followed when assigning presentations to her students. In the first week of class, she would tell her
students that in the next week’s class they would have to give a short self-introduction presentation to
the class. The students were asked to go home and write down a short introduction and practicepresenting that introduction for homework. At the start of the next class, she would have them taketurns standing up in front of the class and giving their presentation to their classmates.
The organization of the presentations that the other teachers reported doing in the classroom
were similar to the one described above, although the presentations the students were asked to dovaried in length and difficulty from 2-minutes (the shortest reported) to 25-minutes (the longest
reported). The difficulty of the topics also varied, and three or the four teachers asked their students topresent on familiar topics, such as a hobby, while two teachers also had their students present on
academic topics that required students to do research (e.g., gender studies). In both of those instances51

of academic presentations, students were asked to prepare PowerPoint slides for use during theirpresentation.
Peer Review Tasks
Another popular task that was used by all the teachers was peer reviews. All the teachersinterviewed said that they had used peer reviews or peer assessment tasks and asked their students togive feedback to each other, using English, in their writing classes. One of the teachers, Mr. Smith, also
said that he had had his students do peer assessment tasks in his presentation class.
All the teachers followed a similar method for using peer reviews in their writing class. The classbefore the paper was due, the teacher would ask their students to bring in a copy of the first draft oftheir paragraph or essay. In class students would then exchange their drafts with a peer and they would
read through their peer’s writing. Three of the teachers had students answer some questions about the
paper they were reading, such as “What is the topic sentence?”, “Underline the two supporting ideas”,“What technique does the author use to explain these supporting ideas?” The students were also
required to provide their peer with some feedback on how to improve their paper. The students would
then have to use their peers’ suggestions to improve their paper before submitting it to the teacher.
In the presentation class Mr. Smith said that he had his students provide feedback for the otherstudents’ presentations. He would give them a handout of things to look for in their peers’presentations, such as the physical components (voice inflection, gestures, or eye contact); the content(organization, details, or clarity); or the visual component (how the PowerPoint slides were made). He
also has them give some general comments on what they liked about their peer’s presentation andsome ways that they thought the presentation could have been better. He then collects thesecomments and collates them before giving them to the student who did the presentation, along with his
own comments. This allows the students to give feedback to their peers in an anonymous way.
All the teachers interviewed said that they felt that this activity was an important part of thewriting process. They felt that it was useful for the students because it helped the writers to improvetheir compositions before submitting them to the teacher. They also felt that this process was helpful
for the reviewers because it helped them to understand what good and bad writing is. Finally, they feltthat it gave students an opportunity to discuss their ideas with their peers and also to ask and answer
questions about the writing process.
Mr. Smith and Ms. Jones, in particular, felt that peer review was a very important
communicative task in the language classroom. For example, Mr. Smith said that peer review tasks
allowed students to use English with a clear communicative objective in mind, helping their classmatesto improve their written English or their presentations. This created a task where students could not
only give and receive feedback, but also get more accustomed to using the type of English necessary toevaluate other students written or spoken performance. This communicative task helped them to not
only discuss the writing or presentation activities with their classmates but also allowed them to better
understand the feedback they received on their own writing or presentations.
Discussion
The next section discusses the benefits of using these tasks that the teachers gave in theirinterviews. It also looks at the tasks from the students’ perspective, highlighting some potential
problems that students may have when trying to do these tasks, as well as suggesting some possible
solutions to these problems.

52

Discussion Tasks
The teachers’ all felt that using tasks to help students participate in discussions in the classroom allowed
them to become more involved in the discussions and made the discussions more authentic. They also
felt that well-constructed tasks helped to make the classes more communicative and improved theclassroom atmosphere. However, there are some possible problems involved with using discussion
classes in the English language classroom in Japan.
Potential problems. While teachers may see the benefits of using discussion tasks in theclassroom it is important to remember that it can be a very difficult task for Japanese students to do
effectively. In my current master’s degree program, we regularly do this kind of task (i.e., read-anddiscuss) with journal articles. One of the things that I have noticed in my classes is that Japanese
speakers often do this assignment differently from the native English speakers. The Japanese speakers in
the class are much more likely to try to summarize the article in the classroom discussions bymemorizing passages from the article word for word. This is difficult to do and is the type of
demotivating rote memorization activity that TBLT is supposed to avoid.
There seems to be three possible reasons that Japanese students approach the activity in thisway. First of all, in Japan students are usually taught to do intensive reading by translating the passage
into Japanese and then answering the comprehension questions that follow the passage by copying theanswer word for word from the text. Because of this, even proficient Japanese EFL students may tend to
focus on memorizing the story word-for-word and on the language of the reading, rather than on themeaning. Another possible problem is that the type of summary required by this activity involves having
students paraphrase what they read. However, my own experience suggests that paraphrasing is not
something that Japanese students are taught to do, even in their first language. Finally, because thefocus of English classes in Japan had been on grammar and accuracy, students might be worried about
making grammatical mistakes. Because of this, they may tend to give short answers, or try to memorize
the answer word for word to ensure that they get the grammar correct.
Possible solutions. In order for students to be able to do this task in the classroom, the teacher
needs to remember to do three important things. First of all, teachers need to understand that theirstudents will probably lack experience summarizing articles in the method required to do this task
effectively. Because of this, teachers need to be very clear when they explain the activity to theirstudents. They need to emphasize that the focus on the activity is on being able to communicate with
their classmates and that they will not be graded on their grammatical correctness. They also need to
explain to the students how to paraphrase and how to use paraphrasing to summarize an article.
However, because this task will be very different from what the students are used to, simply explaining
what to do will probably not be sufficient and the teacher will also need to scaffold the activity. Thismeans that they will need to introduce the skills required of the students, such as identifying the mainideas, being able to paraphrase those ideas, and begin able to use the paraphrased ideas to summarize
the article. These skills can be introduced in smaller tasks that can be done in the classroom with shorteasy texts, clear goals, and direct support from the teacher. The final thing that teachers need toremember when using this type of activity in the classroom is repetition. Research shows that task
repetition is one important factor that teachers need to take into account when having students do
tasks as familiarity with the task frees up cognitive resources, allowing students to pay attention to thelanguage that they are using (Bygate, 1996; Fukuta, 2016). Only one of the teachers I talked to said thatthey did this task more than twice during the semester. However, the cognitive load required to do thistype of complex task means that the first few times the students do the task, they will probably not beable to do the task well. However, after a few tries, students will understand what is required of themand be able to think less about how to do the task and focus on what they are doing. This is true even53for proficient students and it took me four or five repetitions before I was comfortable doing this type oftask in my Master’s class.
Presentation Tasks
The teachers used presentations in the classroom because they felt that they were a good way
for students to practice their communication skills, something that is supported by previous research(e.g. Gerard, Pinar, & Trapp, 2011). They also felt that presentations were good because they require
students to use all four language skills and are a good way to get students motivated to talk in English.
However, there are some potential problems with using presentations in the classroom.
Potential problems. Unfortunately, for students, presentations may also be very challenging.
There are two major challenges for students with regards to presenting in front of others. First of all,presentations place a lot of cognitive demands on the students, especially those students that lack thecore fluency required to give an effective presentation (Jordan, 1997). Students have to not only
remember what to say, but also worry about things like having good posture and eye contact, trying to
use the correct gestures, and making sure that they pronounce the words correctly. Because of thechallenges involved with doing a good presentation, students often do not enjoy giving presentations in
the language classroom (Ross, 2007). Another potential problem with presentations for students is thatthey are a high stakes activity. Not only are students being asked to present in front of their peers,something that they may find very stressful, but they are also being graded by the teacher.
Possible solutions. For presentations to be effective, they need to be properly scaffolded(Sundrarajun & Kiely’s, 2010). Students need to be instructed about how to give a presentation andintroduced to the appropriate genres (Hovane, 2009). They also need to be given the opportunity topractice their presentation skills in shorter, lower stakes presentations before they are asked to present
in front of the class. Secondly, as with discussions, repetition is very important. For students to be able
to become proficient in the skills required to do a good presentation they need to be given lots ofopportunities to practice these skills in authentic situations. This means that the teacher should
integrate shorter and simpler presentations into their classes, preferably having the students present toa small group rather than in front of the class. Thirdly, students need to be given the chance to givepresentations in a lower-stakes setting. One good way to do this is to use poster presentations(Thornbury, 2005). In poster presentations students give a short presentation to a small group of
students using a poster to help them. The audience members then rotate, and students give the same
presentation again to another group of students. This type of activity allows students to present to asmall group instead of to the whole class, repeat their presentation multiple times giving them theopportunity to improve their presentations and fix their mistakes, and to do a presentation a number oftimes before they are graded on it. This type of presentation has been shown to reduce the amount ofstress students feel while giving presentations (Lambert, 2008).
Peer Review Tasks
The teachers interviewed felt that peer review tasks were a good way to have students provide
feedback to their peers. They were tasks that required the students to think about not just what theirpeers had written but also how to communicate their opinions and ideas about the quality of thatwriting to their classmates. This required them to focus not only on the vocabulary and grammar ofwhat they were saying but also on the pragmatics of what they are saying as well, the task requires
them to provide the writer with constructive feedback without being too harsh or too lenient. Finally,
they also felt that this task was beneficial for the student’s ability to understand the feedback that they
were going to receive on their own writing, from both their peers and the teacher. However, as with the54other two tasks there are some potential problems that teachers need to consider when using peer
review in their classroom.
Potential problems. Peer review is another activity that can be difficult for Japanese students.
One of the potential problems with the peer review process is that students are not always aware of theimportance of the peer-review or the benefits that they can get by participating in this task. As a student
who is Japanese, I never had to do peer review in my Japanese classes. I also had not experienced doing
peer review in my language classes until I started my master’s degree program. Another problem
Japanese students might have with peer review is that many students feel that providing feedback onsomeone’s language skills is the job of the teacher and not the student. And yet, Japanese students who
are doing peer review are more likely to focus on grammatical mistakes in their peer’s writing rather
than the organization or ideas.
Even students who do understand why they are doing peer review may not do a good job. Thismay be because they feel uncomfortable giving feedback to their peers. In Japan, it is very uncommon
for people to directly criticize their peers. Because of this, many students feel uncomfortable writing
anything except positive comments such as ‘Great job’ or ‘I enjoyed reading your writing’ on theirpartner’s composition. This defeats the purpose of the peer-review task.
Possible solutions. As with the first two tasks there are several things that the teacher can do inorder to make good use of peer review tasks in their classroom. First of all, they need to clearly explain
the task to their students. This includes providing clear instructions and a model of what to do.
However, explaining is not enough, research has shown that in order to gain significant benefits frompeer review students need to be trained on how to do peer review tasks properly (Min, 2006). Most of
the teachers interviewed for this paper trained their students by giving them a short description about
what to do and explaining the activity to them. Half of them, two of the four, also had their students doa practice peer review activity as a whole class. While this is a good start, studies have shown thatstudents may need as many as five hours of training to be able to do peer-review properly (Min, 2005).
Min suggested that this training should include in-class instruction and modeling where students areshown how to make comments on model essays as a class. She also noted that it is essential for teachers
to follow-up on this training with feedback sessions to let students know how they are doing with theirpeer reviews and what steps they can take to improve them. While time-consuming, she found that thistraining was necessary to avoid students giving vague feedback, not being able to understand thewriter’s intentions, and not being able to effectively communicate their ideas about the paper to thewriter.
Conclusion
Although all the tasks and the solutions to the problems with these tasks are different, there aresome common themes that run through all of them. The first of these themes is that teachers need to
be aware of their students’ educational backgrounds and realize that many of the tasks that they areasking their students to do will be challenging for these students. Because of this it is important thatteachers explain the tasks well and scaffold the skills that students will need to be able to succeed inthese tasks. Part of this explanation should also inform students about the benefits of doing tasks in theclassroom and the expectations that the teacher has for them while they are doing the task.
Another important thing to remember is the importance of task repetition. The cognitive
demands of learning how to do a new, and often challenging, task can make it difficult for students tofocus on both what they need to do and how they need to do it. Because of this, students will probably
struggle with a task the first few times that they are asked to do it. However, if they are able to repeat
the task multiple times they will get better at doing the task and enjoy it more.
55

The main theme of this paper, and something that my own experiences and my interviews withother teachers confirm, is that TBLT can work in the Japanese context. Of course, the teacher will needto set up the tasks correctly, and choose tasks that are not too difficult for the students to complete.
However, if they are able to do this then TBLT can be used as a way to both improve students’communicative competence and motivate them to learn English. This in turn will help them to become
better users of English.
References
Brown, H. D., & Lee, H. (2015). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Burrows, C. (2008). Socio-cultural barriers facing TBL in Japan. The Language Teacher, 32(8), 15–19.
Butler, Y. G. (2011). The implementation of communicative and task-based language teaching in the
Asia-pacific Region. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 36–57.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000122
Butler, Y. G., & Iino, M. (2005). Current Japanese reforms in English language education: The 2003 action
plan. Language Policy, 4, 25–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-004-6563-5
Bygate, M. (1996). Effects of task repetition: appraising the developing language of learners. In J. Willis
and D. Willis (Eds.) Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 136–146). Oxford, England:
Heinemann.
Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learningof linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second language Acquisition, 15, 357–386.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100012158
Dickinson, P. (2010). Implementing task-based language teaching in a Japanese EFL context(Unpublished MA thesis). University of Birmingham, England. Retrieved from:http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/documents/college-artslaw/cels/essays/languageteaching/dickinsonltm.pdf
Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 193–
220. https://doi.org/10.1177/136216880000400302
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language teaching and learning. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Fotos, S. (2002). Structure-based interactive tasks for the EFL grammar learner. In E. Hinkel and S. Fotos(Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 135–154).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fukuta, J. (2016). Effects of task repetition on learners’ attention orientation in L2 oral production.
Language Teaching Research, 20, 321–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815570142
Girard, T., Pinar, A. M., & Trapp, P. (2011). An exploratory study of class presentations and peer
evaluations: Do students perceive the benefits? Academy of Educational Leadership Journal,
15(1), 77–93.
Hovane, M. (2009). Teaching presentation skills for communicative purposes. Kansai University Foreign
Language Education Forum, 8, 35–49.
Jordan, R.R. (1997). English for academic purposes. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511733062
Kikuchi, K., & Sakai, H. (2009) Japanese learners’ demotivation to study English: A survey study. JALT
Journal, 31, 183–204.
Kotaka, M. (2013). Task-based language teaching (TBLT) and the Japanese English classroom. Graduate
Bulletin of Tsuru University, 17, 47–70.
56

Lambert, I. (2008). Assessing oral communication: Poster presentations. Language Research Bulletin ICU,
23, 1–13.
Littlewood, W. (2007). Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian classrooms.
Language Teaching, 40, 243–249. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444807004363
MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology). (2013). Gakushu shidou youryouikiruchikara [The course of study-power for living]. Retrieved fromhttp://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/new-cs/youryou/index.htm
Min, H. T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33, 293–308.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.11.003
Min, H. T. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 118–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.01.003
Nunan, D. (2003). The impact of English as a global language on educational policies and practices in the
Asia-Pacific Region. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 589–613. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588214
Richards, K. (2009). Interviews. In J. Heigham & R.A. Croker (Eds.), Qualitative research in applied
linguistics (pp. 182–199). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230239517_9
Ross, E. (2007, July 8). Are oral classroom presentations necessary? Insights into TEFL. Retrieved fromhttps://insights-into-tefl.blogspot.com/2007/07/are-oral-classroom-presentations.html
Sato, R. (2009). Suggestions for creating approaches suitable to the Japanese EFL environment. The
Language Teacher, 33(9), 11–14.
Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. Houndmills, England: Palgrave
Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230596429
Skehan, P. (2009). A Framework for the implantation of task-based instruction. In K. Van den Branden,
M. Bygate & J. Norris (Eds.), Task-based language teaching (pp. 83–108). Amsterdam,
Netherlands: Benjamins.
Sundrarajun, C., & Kiely, R. (2010). The oral presentation as a context for learning and assessment.
Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 4, 101–117.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17501220903125021
Tani-Fukuchi, N., & Sakamoto, R. (2005) Affective dimensions of the Japanese foreign language learner:
Implications for psychological learner development in Japan. Journal of Multilingual andMulticultural Development, 26, 333–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434630508669086
Thornbury, S. (2005). How to teach speaking. Harlow, England: Pearson Education.
Willis, J. (1996) A framework for task-based Learning. Harlow, England: Longman.
Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2009) Task-based language teaching: Some questions and answers. The Language
Teacher, 33(3), 3–8
Zheng, X., & Borg, S. (2014). Task-based learning and teaching in China: Secondary school teachers’
beliefs and practices. Language Teaching Research, 18, 205–221.

57

Appendix
TBLT Interview Questions
BackgroundNumber of years teaching English.
Number of years teaching at a University level in Japan.
Where you teach.
Subjects taught (listening, writing, presentations, etc).
In the first three sections I am going to ask about how you use 3 different types of tasks in yourclassroom. Please tell me as much as you can about why you do or don’t use each of these tasks in yourclassroom. If you use these tasks please also tell me about how you implement them, why you use
them, what the students’ reaction to the task is, and any common issues or problems you see whenusing this task.
Section 1: Discussion tasks
1. What type of tasks do you use to help your students discuss topics in the classroom using English?
2. How do you implement those tasks (what steps do you take to set up and conduct the task in yourclasses?
3. Why do you use these discussion tasks in your classes?
4. What benefits do you think there are for the students in doing these discussion tasks?
5. How well are students able to perform these tasks? Are there any common problems students havewith the tasks?
Section 2: Presentations
1. Do you have students do presentations (this can be sort presentations or longer preparedpresentations either in front of the class or to a small group) in any of your classes?
2. What type of presentations do you do in your classes?
3. How do you implement those presentations in your classes?
4. Why do you use these presentations in your classes?
5. What benefits do you think there are for the students in doing presentations?
6. How well are students able to prepare for and do presentations? Are there any common problems
students have with this task?
Section 3: Peer review tasks
1. Do you have students do peer review activities in any of your classes? If yes, what classes do you use
peer review in?
2. How do you implement peer review in your classes?
3. Do you do anything to make sure students are doing the peer review tasks correctly?
4. Why do you use peer review in your classes?
5. What benefits do you think there are for the students in doing peer review tasks?
6. How well are students able to review their peers’ work? Are there any common problems students
have with this task?
Section 4: In this section could you talk about other tasks you use in your classes. Please discuss, what
the tasks are, why you use them, how you implement them, and the students’ reaction to these tasks.
58

Chapter 6
Physical Games as Language Tasks:
One Game’s Effect on Language Production and Students’ Perceptions
Sya’baningrum Prihhartini(Universitas Islam ’45)
Abstract
This study investigated 20 Indonesian university students’ perceptions of the use of a physical game in asecond language classroom and whether the game facilitated the learners to achieve grammaticalaccuracy. The game was designed by adapting a traditional Indonesian game called Engklek and combining
it with a language task. It required the learners to take turns throwing a stone marker at designed squares,
jumping on one leg toward the cue card where their marker landed, and answering the If-conditionalquestion written on the card. After playing one round, the learners were asked to write their own cue
cards and play again, this time using their self-made cue cards as the questions. A survey form and thelearners’ self-written cue cards were collected at the end of the game and their speech during the gamewas recorded and transcribed in order to provide information about (a) their perceptions of the game,and (b) use of the If-conditional type II structure targeted. Qualitative methods were subsequently used
to analyze the data. The findings revealed generally positive perceptions of the game, with the chance toplay an old game from childhood as one of the main reasons why many learners found the game engaging.
Another finding showed that the game, through repetition, seems to have facilitated some improvementin grammatical accuracy of the use of the targeted If-conditional structure in the learners’ writing andspeech.
Keywords: grammatical accuracy; grammar instruction; learner perception; kinesthetic learning; physicalgame
Grammar teaching in Indonesia is mostly done through often-repetitive teaching techniques(Marcellino, 2008) in which students primarily memorize sentence patterns and work on written exercisesin the textbooks (Widiati & Cahyono, 2006). As a result, Indonesian students’ perceptions of “grammar”
are mostly negative, with the conotations of “boring” and “difficult” often brought to mind when grammar
is mentioned (Prihhartini & Halimi, 2016, p. 9). In addition, rather strict teaching of English language rules
also often further contributes to students’ negative attitudes towards the English language learning (Yulia,2013). Various approaches and techniques have been attempted to overcome these problems, with thepotential benefits of teaching grammar through games one area that has been explored (Baleghizadeh &Oladrostam, 2011; Tuan & Nguyen, 2010; Yolageldili & Arikan, 2011).
Teaching grammar through games has been encouraged because games are believed to be
motivating for the language learners who find them amusing and challenging in ways that traditional
pedagogical approaches are not (Tuan & Nguyen, 2010). The use of games in the language classroom has
also been found to promote a stress-free environment (Yildiz & Senel, 2017) and even enjoyment andrelaxation among some learners (Yolageldili & Arikan, 2011). Some games have also been recognized fortheir ability to provide students with ample repetition (Tomlinson & Masuhara, 2009), which manyscholars believe is one important aspect to include in task-based language teaching (Bygate & Samuda,2005), since task repetition can allow learners to overcome their limited attentional resources andimprove certain aspects of their performance, i.e. fluency, accuracy, and complexity (Skehan, 1998, 2003).
59

Physical games in particular have been noted for their ability to engage more kinestheticallyoriented learners and provide welcome relief from the boredom with more traditional methods (Perveen,
Asif, Mehmood, Khan, & Iqbal, 2016; Tyas & Safitri, 2017). Hence, the present study was designed toinvestigate the effectiveness of one particular physical game that was adapted from a traditional
Indonesian game and to ascertain a sample of Indonesian university students’ perceptions of it.
Literature Review
English grammar, at least for Indonesian students, is often considered as “boring” and “difficult”(Prihhartini & Halimi, 2016, p.9), especially when it comes to complicated English tense system, a concept
which is non-existent in Indonesian language. Some learners see English grammar instruction as very
uninteresting and even frustrating (Tikkha, 2014). These negative views toward English grammar come asa result of strict learning which relies heavily on memorization of patterns (Yulia, 2013) and monotonous
teaching techniques (Marcellino, 2008, p. 65) in which grammar points are taught discreetly for masteryof accuracy (Widiati & Cahyono, 2006, p. 89). To change this negative attitude, and to help make students
more motivated to learn grammar, new techniques need to be employed. Physical activities are one suchtechnique advocated in the literature.
A study by Tyas and Safitri (2017) revealed that both male and female students tend to bekinesthetic learners, and that some students learn better when they are able to explore and get involved
physically in the classroom. However, even though kinesthetic activities are common for young language
learners, perhaps most notably in approaches like Asher’s (1980) Total Physical Response (TPR), it appears
that college students are rarely exposed to kinesthetic learning (Tranquillo, 2008), especially in theIndonesian university context.
Despite a growing interest in using games and/or kinesthetic-based activities in the grammarclassroom in some corners in recent years (Baleghizadeh & Oladrostam, 2011; Tikkha, 2014), it issurprising to find very few references to “physical games” and their relation to second language
acquisition. However, one article that gave a quite thorough review of this topic was written by Tomlinson
and Masuhara (2009). In this review, the authors proposed several principles as to why physical games
can be beneficial for the language learners. One of the principles is that such games can provide language
learners with rich, meaningful, comprehensible input, which is widely recognized for its importance inlanguage acquisition (Tomlinson & Masuhara, 2009). Another principle is that physical games can expose
learners to repetition, in which they meet a particular language item multiple times (Tomlinson &Masuhara, 2009). This type of controlled task repetition has been recognized by Bygate (2001) among
others for its potential benefits in overcoming what Skehan (1998) considered to be trade-offs inattentional focus that language learners face when engaged in tasks using language that has not yet been
fully mastered. With such trade-offs, it is believed that learners cannot access all three aspects ofperformance, i.e fluency, accuracy, and complexity, simultaneously due to limited attentional capacity,
and, therefore, they have to choose a certain aspect that they want to highlight, and by doing so, sacrificethe other aspects. Through the repetition that is a natural component of many games, learners arepresented with opportunities to attend to more aspects of their production. In other words, it is thoughtthat such activities may allow learners to direct their attention to being more fluent, more accurate, andproducing more complex language structures as the task is repeated.
Another aspect that games provide which has been noted for its positive affect on language
acquisition is that they may allow learners to be motivated, engaged, and relaxed (Tomlinson, 1998).
Games can also provide challenges which can activate students’ mental and stimulate neutral networks,
thereby spurring deeper learning and longer-term retention (Tuan & Nguyen, 2010). As games can be60

played by a whole class, be it individually, in pairs, or in teams, even shy students can participate with alowered affective filter (Tuan & Nguyen, 2010).
Although the many proposed benefits of games for language learning are rather intuitive, previous
studies that investigated the effect of games on grammar learning have shown mixed results.
Baleghizadeh and Oladrostam (2011) compared three experimental groups that received grammar
learning through three different techniques, namely: dialogues, focused tasks, and games. The results
revealed no statistically significant differences in the learning demonstrated by the three treatmentgroups and that the three techniques had relatively the same effects on the students’ grammaticalaccuracy. Another study by Ashok, Revanthi, and Saminathan (2013) examined the effectiveness oflanguage games in learning English grammar. In this study, 60 middle school students were put into twogroups: the control group was taught using conventional methods while the experimental group received
grammar taught through language games. The comparison of pre-test and post-test scores for the twogroups revealed a statistically significant effect of the language game treatment.
In the present study, a physical game was applied to teach a grammatical item (If-conditional TypeII) to Indonesian college students. In order to provide some indications of the effectiveness of the gamein fostering the acquisition of the target grammatical structure, the following research questions wereposed:
1. To what degree was the target structure used accurately during the physical game?
2. What were the students’ perceptions of the game?
3. What interlanguage phenomena were found in the students’ speech during the game?
Methods
Participants
Twenty second-year Indonesian university students from an intact required EFL class participatedin this study. By the time the present study was conducted, these intermediate-level participants havelearned English for over 13 years. Among the 20 participants, there were 14 female students and 6 malestudents. This study employed no control group.
Tasks

Prior to the start of the game, the 20 students were divided into three groups to allow more turns
between players, with the resulting group sizes of seven, seven, and six members. Since all students werefamiliar with how this game is commonly played, the teacher did not provide any specific instructions
related to the game procedures. Each group received six cue cards containing questions in If-Conditional
Type II form, and the cards were laid on the floor in a cross pattern in front of each group. After all the
cards were laid down, each group did an Indonesian style of scissor-paper-rock game to decide the turnsof the players. Then they started the game. Three first players from each group stood around three meters
away from their group’s set of cards. They threw a stone towards the cards and jumped on one leg towards
the card nearest to where the stone landed. He/she then needed to answer the question on the cue cardout loud. As this game was just done for the first time, no penalty was applied if the player gave
incomplete answers. Instead, the teacher encouraged the players to explain their answers. During thegame, the teacher moved around recording the game and checking on the players’ answers. The gamewon when all players from each group could return to the start. After the first round, the students were
instructed to write their own If-conditional questions. They were given 5 minutes to do so. When they
were done, the second round of game began. This time they played using their own cards.

61

Target Structure
The target structure analyzed in this study was If-Conditional Type II. English grammar has fourtypes of If-conditional: (a) Type 0—automatic result of a possible future action, (b) Type I—open condition,(c) Type II—unreal condition, and (d) Type III—imaginary past action (Eastwood, 1994). Type 0 describes
how one action automatically follows another, as in “If you heat water up to 100° C, it boils”. This type ofConditional uses Present verbs in both clauses. Type 1 describes how one action will likely be followed byanother action, or in this case, result, as in “If we don’t hurry, we will miss the train” (Eastwood, 1994,
p.335). In this type of Conditional, the If-clause uses Present verb, while another clause uses modal verbs(will/can) followed by Infinitive verb. Type 2 describes imaginary situation, often unreal, or theoreticalpossibility in the future, such as “If I had a lot of money, I would buy the most expensive watch”. In thissentence, the speaker imagines a situation that is (most likely) the opposite of the Present situation. This
type of sentence uses Past verb for the If-clause, and modal verbs (would/could) followed by Infinitive
verb in the other clause. Type 3 describes imaginary past action, which is usually the opposite of what had
happened, as in “If I had studied that night, I would have passed the test”. In this situation, the speaker
imagined a different scenario of past event. This type of Conditional uses Past Perfect tense for the Ifclause, and modal verbs (would/could/might) followed by Perfect tense in the other clause.
The students in this research had learned all four types of If-Conditional some time in their senior highschool days, but it was not studied thoroughly. In this research, some examples of If-Conditional type IIquestions written on the cue cards included: “If you were Harry Potter, what would you do?” and “If yourplane crashed and you were trapped on a remote island, what three things would you do first?” All thequestions used in the first round and the questions written by the students can be found in Appendix A.
Data Collection and Analysis
To address the first research question, the cue cards written by the students at the beginning of
the second round of the game were collected and the students’ output was transcribed from a video
recording of the game. Both the student-written cue cards and the speech transcriptions were used toanalyze the students’ language output.
To address the second research question, a survey was conducted to find out the students’
perceptions of the game using a questionnaire to collect the data. The questionnaire consisted of fiveopen-ended questions that tapped into students’ evaluation of the game (see Appendix B for the actual
questions). The questionnaire was written in Indonesian, but the students were allowed to write their
responses in English or Indonesian. For the first question about the students’ impressions of the game
(See Appendix B), the following steps were taken for the analysis: (a) Listing adjectives/verbs found in the
responses that describe the students’ opinion of the game; (b) categorizing the words found into positive,
neutral, or negative responses; (c) counting the number of words found in each category to calculate thefrequency; and (d) counting the proportion to determine the percentage of the responses. As for the restof the questions in the questionnaire, analysis was focused on most common answers found in thestudents’ responses.
To address the third question, the students’ utterances (responses) during the game wererecorded and transcribed. Some field notes taken by the teacher were also used. Both data were thenanalyzed qualitatively to see any phenomena happening in the game.
Results and Discussion
Once the game was conducted, analyses to address the three research questions were conducted.
Below are the findings found related to the questions: (a) to what degree the target structure was used62

accurately during the physical game, (b) what the students’ perceptions of the game were, and (c) what
interlanguage phenomena were found in the students’ speech during the game.
Analysis on the Students’ Self-Written Cue Cards Used in the Second Round of the Game
In order to see the effect of the game on the learners’ language output, after the first round of game, each
student was given two minutes to write an original cue card containing a question using the target IfConditional Type II structure for the second round of the game. The student-written cue cards were thenchecked to determine to what degree the students could make the questions in the target structure
correctly. The results here showed that 15/20 (75%) of the students made their questions accurately while
5/20 (25%) of the students made some errors in their questions. The most common source of error wasusing infinitive verbs for the if-clause part instead of past simple verbs, like the example below.
Example of students’ errors in the students self-written cue cards
Student C
Student F
Student G: “If you face a problem, what would you do?” (correct form = faced): “If you meet the president, what would you say?” (correct form = met)
: “If you are Thanos, what would you destroy?” (correct form = were)

Further examination of the students’ self-written cue cards revealed that 5/20 (25%) of the cards
produced used the same if-clause verbs used in the first round of the game, such as “met” (If you met acute snake, what would you do?) and “saw” (If you saw your ex in somewhere, what would you feel?).
However, new verbs were also found in the cue cards produced by 15/20 (75%) of the learners. Some
examples included: “ate” (If you ate pork accidentally, what would you do?), “fell” (If your phone fell down,
what would you say?), and “could + infinitive” (If you could travel in time, what moment would you go
back?). Hence, the self-written cue cards showed that a majority of the students were able to apply thetarget structure correctly in their written output.
Students’ Perceptions of the GameTo investigate the students’ perceptions of the physical game used in this study, a survey was given toeach student after the session ended. The survey form contained five open-ended questions asking
learners what they thought of the game, what they liked best about it, and what could be improved (seeAppendix B)
Regarding the students’ impressions of the game (Question 1), the results showed 100% of thestudents had a positive response to the game while both neutral and negative responses were not found(0%). Words like childhood (13/20), fun (11/20), play (9/20), and happy (11/20) were among the mostfrequent words found in their answers. Since the game was designed by adapting a traditional Indonesiangame into an English language task, the students seemed to feel happy because they could reminisce
about when they used to play that game in their childhood.

63

Table 1
Words the Students Used to Describe the Physical Games
100%

20%

20%

20%

25%

30%

35%

35%

35%

45%

45%

45%

ct
ive

40%

ng

60%

Pl
ay

Frequency (%)

80%
55%

55%

55%

65%

ho
od

Fu
n

Ch
ild

Ex
cit
ed

y
Ha
pp

Ef
fe

Le
ar
ni

Ne
w

En
jo
y

te
r

La
ug
h

ias
tic

hu
s

Gr
ea
t

En
t

Cr
ea
tiv
e
M
em
or
ab
le

0%

Words used

The second question was asked to peek into the students’ minds when they were playing thegame. The students answered that the game brought their memories to their childhood days during which
they played this game and that the game was very interesting. The comments were shown below.
“When I played that game, I felt like going back to my childhood. It was full of laughter and somemorable.” (Student D)“The game was very interesting. Because the game remind me of my childhood games. Besides thatthe game also train us to speak in English” (Student J)
The third question aimed to identify the part of the game that the students liked best. The results
showed that the physical movements (7/20), like throwing and jumping, and the opportunities to answer
the questions (13/20) were the most common reasons why they liked this game.
Responding to the question : “Which part of the game do you like best?”
Student B
Student D
Student J: “When I threw the stone and jumped towards the cards.”: “When I got the card and had to answer the question written in the card.”: “When I got interesting questions.”

The fourth question was asked to get some feedback from the students on ways in which thegame could potentially be improved. Several interesting ideas were generated from their feedback. The
first was that they suggested that players should add reasons for their responses to the questions on thecue cards. For example, if a cue card asked “If you found some money on the street, what would you do?”,the player should respond by saying something like: “If I found some money on the street, I would buy
some food because I get hungry easily.” Hence, the students would be encouraged to speak more by
explaining their answers. The second interesting finding was the students wanted more tricky types ofquestions, like” If you saw your ex-boyfriend/girlfriend with his/her new crush, what would you do?”.
64

In this case, it seems like the students wanted to be presented with more of a challenge whileanswering and/or listening to their friends’ answers. The third interesting finding found in their feedback
was that they did not like it when they got the same question more than once. As one of the game’s rules
said that no two players could land on the same cue card, if another player landed on an occupied card,
the first player that landed on that spot had to go back to start. As a result, such students could then landon the same cue card that they had had before on a subsequent turn. Although such retries might be goodfor providing fluency and accuracy practice, it turned out the students did not really like it when they had
to answer the same questions more than once.
The last question was asked to see their opinion about the game and its efficacy to learn language.
All of the students (100%) mentioned that the game was effective as it pushed them to speak. Some ofthe students (25%) even mentioned that they never thought before that grammar could be learned thisway, shown from one of the students’ comments below.
“In my opinion, studying about conditional sentence Type II but wrapped with playing Engklek wassomething beyond my imagination. I have never had any idea that studying grammar can be that fun.
2 thumbs up for Ms. Tien. You are inspiring teacher.” (Student D)
Analysis of the Learners’ Speech During the Game
Qualitative analysis used to investigate the learners’ speech during the game revealed someinterlanguage phenomena found when the students had to complete the task. The main phenomena
were found to be: (a) Noticing and self-repair, (b) Simplification, and (c) Overgeneralization.
Noticing and self-repair. The game allowed some students to notice the gap between what should
be produced and what they produced, and it also gave them the opportunities to self-repair their own
words. For example, in Student A’s utterance shown below, the student noticed that he incorrectly used
the infinitive verb “meet” instead of the correct past simple verb “met”.
Responding to the cue card question: “If you met your ex, what would you do?”Student A: If I meet..if I met my ex, I would do nothing.
In the situation below, Student B noticed that he had produced an incorrect structure when he said “I
would basketball”, and he could repair the structure by saying “I would play basketball”.
Responding to the cue card question: “ If you could be an athlete, what sport would you play?”
Student B : If I could be athlete, I would...basketball. I would basketball. I would play basketball.
In this excerpt below, Student C got a question of possibility to travel anywhere in the world, andanswered “I want to go to America”. The teacher tried to get a more specific answer, since America is acontinent, by asking “which country?”. This led Student C to recognize her mistake when she exclaimed“Oh!” and gave a country she wanted to go. The teacher gave a recast by saying “you would go to Brazil?”.
This was used to give a clue that she should answer with “would” instead of “want”. However, in this partStudent C only gave a short confirmation, “Yes.” The part when Student C answered “America” was likely
influenced by the fact that Indonesian people commonly refer to both the U.S (country) and continent as“Amerika”.

65Responding to the cue card question: “If you could travel anywhere in the world, which country
would you go?”Student C: I want to go to America.
Teacher: Which country?
Student C : America. Oh! Hmm.. Brazil.
Teacher : You would go to Brazil?
Student C : Yes.
As noted by Schmidt (2001, 2020), noticing is necessary for language acquisition. Furthermore, as theexample above shows, noticing can also lead to self-repair, or the process by which speakers revise orrepeat their prior talk at their own initiation (Quan & Weisser, 2015).
Simplification. The second feature found in the learners’ speech during the game wassimplification and the use of incomplete sentences when they were unable to fully express their responses
in English. For example, in Student B’s utterance below, the student omitted the main verb after the modal
verb, which likely happened due to influence of the first language (Mahmoud, 2014).
Responding to the cue card question: “If you found your crush’s bikini, what would you do?”Student B: If I found my crush’s bikini, I would.........nothing.
In this excerpt, it seems that Student B roughly simplified the Indonesian language phrase, “tidak
melakukan apa-apa” (not going to do anything) in his response of “I would…nothing”. Beyond first
language influence alone, the learner’s decision to employ this communication strategy was also likely
triggered by the time pressure. As the transcription above suggests, there was a quite long pause after
the learner said “I would”. As the other players urged him to answer the question quickly, he likely felt
pressured to come up with his response quickly, resulting in simplification of language.
Responding to the cue card question: “If you found some money on the street, what would you
buy?”Student C: Hmmm.. I would..lunch with my friend.
In this excerpt, Student C said “I would lunch” instead of “I would buy/eat/have lunch”. This was likely
influenced by direct translation. “Lunch” was translated into Indonesian language as “makan siang”, while“makan” means “eat”. Hence, Student C thought that the word “lunch” has already meant “eat”, resulting
in a simplified structure “I would lunch”.
Overgeneralization. After the first round of game ended, the students were asked to write theirown cue cards. During this time, one of the students asked her friend, “What would you write? Whatwould you write?” instead of “What will you write?”. When a student employs an overgeneralization
strategy, it can mean that the learner has mastered the mechanics of a particular syntactic rule of thetarget language, and/or the learner is an active participant in the language acquisition process and is
exercising his/her already acquired knowledge of the target language in a creative way (Taylor, 1975).
66

Overall, the game was perceived positively by all participating students (Positive=100%,
Neutral=0%, Negative=0%). As the findings above show, physical game applied in this study helped thestudents to achieve some benefits in relation to their language acquisition. First, it provided the students
with opportunities to notice language gap and restructure their language, which was shown from Student
A’s utterance ( “If I meet..if I met my ex..”) or Student B’s utterance (“If I could be athlete, I
would...basketball. I would basketball. I would play basketball.”). Second, it gave the students access tofluency and accuracy as the students got more familiar with the questions and could produce the answers
more quickly and accurately. Third, it provided the students with enjoyment in learning grammar, which
was reflected in one of the students’ comments (“ I have never had any idea that studying grammar canbe that fun.”) or words the students used to describe the game (fun, happy, excited). Hence, teachers areencouraged to try out physical games for grammar learning in their classrooms.
Conclusion
The findings of this study show how grammar teaching and learning, which was previously seen
as “boring” and “difficult” by Indonesian college learners, could be made into a fun, enjoyable task by
employing a physical game that allowed the learners to get out of their seats and put their linguisticknowledge and skills into use. Through physical games such as the one outlined in this study, learners canexperience a unique, stress-free condition allowing all to be active participants, regardless of whether
they are shy or confident language users. Hence, it is believed that grammar learning can be moremeaningful as the students challenge themselves to complete the task at hand.
References
Asher, J. (1980). The Total Physical Response approach to second language learning. The Modern
Language Journal, 53, 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1969.tb04552.x
Ashok, M. L., Revathi, P., & Saminathan, P. (2013). Effectiveness of language games in learning English
grammar. Shanlax International Journal of Education, 1(3), 16–23.
Baleghizadeh, S., & Oladrostam, E. (2011). Teaching grammar for active use: An exploration of three
instructional techniques. Linguistic and Literary Broad Research and Innovation, 2(1), 70–78.
Bygate, M., & Samuda, V. (2005). Integrative planning through the use of task repetition. In R. Ellis (Ed.),
Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 37–74). Amsterdam, Netherlands:
Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.05byg
Eastwood, J. (1994). Oxford guide to English grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (pp. 333–340)
Mahmoud, A. (2014). Simplification in language learning: What do learners simplify? Studies in English
Language Teaching, 2, 275–280. Retrieved fromhttp://www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/selt/article/view/245/214
Marcellino, M. (2008). English language teaching in Indonesia: A continuous challenge in education andcultural diversity. TEFLIN Journal, 19, 57–69.
https://doi.org/10.15639/TEFLINJOURNAL.V19I1/57-69
Perveen, A., Asif, M., Mehmood, S., Khan, M. K., & Iqbal, Z. (2016). Efectiveness of language games insecond language vocabulary acquisition. Science International (Lahore), 28(1), 633–637.
Retrieved from http://www.sci-int.com/pdf/636328005853836362.pdf
Prihhartini, S., & Halimi, S. S. (2016). The effect of task repetition and focused feedback on students’accuracy: A case study of Indonesian EFL learners. In L. Wahid, F. F. Ali, S. Ismail & M. I. Wahab(Eds.), The 4th International Conference on Language , Literature, Culture and Education (ICLLCE)(pp. 13–21). Infobase Creation Sdn Bhd.
Quan, L., & Weisser, M. (2015). A study of ‘self-repair’ operations in conversation by Chinese English
67

learners. System, 49, 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.10.012
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524780.003
Schmidt, R. (2010). Attention, awareness, and individual differences in language learning. In W. M. Chan,
S. Chi, K. N. Cin, J. Istanto, M. Nagami, J. W. Sew, T. Suthiwan, & I Walker (Eds.), Proceedings of
CLaSIC 2010, (pp. 721–737). https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614510932.2
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36, 1-14.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144480200188X
Taylor, B. P. (1975). The use of overgeneralization and transfer learning strategies by elementary andintermediate students of ESL. Language Learning, 25, 73–107.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1975.tb00110.x
Tikkha, N. (2014). Teaching grammar through virtual model, kinesthetic activities and folklore. In V. Fenn
(Ed.), Grammar and Grammar Teaching: Changing Perspectives (pp. 205-212). Retrieved fromwww.languageinindia.com/april2014/neelamgamesfinal.pdf
Tomlinson, B. (1998). Introduction: principle and procedures of material development. In B. Tomlinson(Ed.), Materials Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press. (pp.1–31)
Tomlinson, B., & Masuhara, H. (2009). Playing to learn: A review of physical games in second language
acquisition. Simulation & Gaming, 40, 645–668. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878109339969
Tranquillo, J. (2008, June). Kinesthetic learning in the classroom. Paper presented at the 2008 Annual
Conference & Exposition. American Society for Engineering Education. Retrieved fromhttps://peer.asee.org/kinesthetic-learning-in-the-classroom
Tuan, L. T, & Nguyen, T. M. D. (2010). Teaching English grammar through games. Studies in Literatureand Language, 1(7), 61–75. Retrieved fromhttp://cscanada.net/index.php/sll/article/download/j.sll.1923156320100107.006/1463
Tyas, P., & Safitri, M. (2017). Kinesthetic learning style preferences: A survey of Indonesian EFL learners
by gender. Journal of English Educators Society, 2(1), 53–64.
https://doi.org/10.21070/jees.v2i1.688
Widiati, U., & Cahyono, B. Y. (2006). The teaching of English grammar in Indonesian context: The state of
the art. CELT, 6(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.24167/celt.v6i2.291
Yildiz, M., & Senel, M. (2017). Teaching grammar through task-based language teaching to young EFL
learners. Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 17, 196–209. Retrieved fromhttp://www.readingmatrix.com/files/17-a267g7f3.pdf
Yolageldili, G., & Arikan, A. (2011). Effectiveness of using games in teaching grammar to young learners.
Elementary Education Online, 10(1), 219–229. Retrieved fromhttps://ardaarikan.weebly.com/uploads/1/0/2/9/10295113/yol.pdf
Yulia, Y. (2013). Teaching challenges in Indonesia: Motivating students and teachers’ classroom
language. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(1), 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v3i1.186

68

Appendix A
Questions Written by the Teacher and by the Students
Below are the questions written in the cue cards provided by the teacher. Each card had one question.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

If your house was hit by a tornado, what would you do?
If you met your favorite artist today, what would you say?
If you could be an athlete, what sport would you play?
If you found some money on the street, what would you buy?
If you were Harry Potter, what would you do?
If you could travel anywhere in the world, which country would you go?

Below are the questions written by the students used in the second round.
1. If you could meet your favorite star, what would you say?
2. If you have chance to choose between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, who would you
choose?
3. If you met a cute snake, what would you do?
4. If you could have a power, what would you choose? Water, Fire, Wind, or Earth?
5. If you had 1 trillion rupiahs, what would you buy?
6. If you could travel in time, what moment would you go back?
7. If you met your ex, what would you do?
8. If you face a problem, what would you do?
9. If you found much money, what would you do?
10. If you saw your ex somewhere, what would you feel, what would you do?
11. If your boyfriend were cheating on you, what would you do?
12. If your house got flood, what would you do?
13. If your phone fell down, what would you do?
14. If you met your crush’s bikini, what would you do?
15. If you saw your ex-boyfriend/girlfriend with his/her new crush, what would you do?
16. If you meet the president, what would you say?
17. If you could teleport, where would you go?
18. If you ate pork accidentally, what would you do?
19. If you were Thanos, what would you destroy?
20. If you can live in another planet (not Earth), where would you go?

69

Appendix B
Questionnaire About the Game
Survei ini dilakukan untuk mengetahui persepsi pemain terhadap permainan bahasa (language game)yang diadaptasi dari permainan tradisional Indonesia Engklek.
This survey was conducted to investigate the players’ perception of the language games, which was
adapted from the traditional Indonesian game Engklek.
Permainan tersebut dilaksanakan pada hari Sabtu, 10 Februari 2018.
The game was held on Saturday, February 10, 2018.
1. Apa pendapat Anda tentang permainan tersebut?
What do you think about the game?
2. Ketika Anda melakukan permainan tersebut, apa yang Anda rasakan?.
What were you thinking when you were playing the game?
3. Bagian mana yang Anda sukai dari permainan tersebut? Mengapa?.
Which part of the game do you like best? Why?
4. Bagian mana yang menurut Anda dapat diperbaiki dari permainan tersebut?
What can be improved from the game?
5. Menurut Anda, apakah permainan tersebut efektif untuk belajar bahasa? Mengapa ya/mengapa
tidak?
In your opinion, is the game effective for language learning? Why/why not?

Terima kasih telah berpartisipasi dalam survei ini.
Thank you for participating in this survey.

70

Chapter 7
The Effects of Different Learning Conditions on Vocabulary Knowledge
Mutsumi Kawakami(Tokyo Denki University)
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to explore the efficacy of two collaborative activities on vocabulary acquisition:
dictogloss, a psychologically-informed approach to task-based language teaching (TBLT), and a fill-in-theblank activity, which is typically found in second language textbooks. It also examines the effectivenessof collaborative activities. Novice EFL (English as a foreign language) students at a Japanese university
participated in this study. An experimental group (n=31) performed a meaning and form focused activity(dictogloss), in which learners listened to a passage and worked in pairs to reconstruct it. A comparisongroup (n=24) collaboratively worked on a form-focused activities (fill-in-the-blanks exercises) in pairs. A
control group (n=27) individually worked on the same activity as the comparison group. Vocabularyknowledge was measured using a modified version of the vocabulary knowledge scale (Paribakht &Wesche, 1997) with a pre-test and two post-tests design. The results revealed that the collaborative
condition promoted higher vocabulary gains in the two post-tests than the individual condition.
However, the experimental group retained their vocabulary better than the comparison group, where amild decrease in the mean scores three weeks after the treatment was found. The findings of this study
suggest the potential importance of collaborative activities and task engagement in learning vocabulary
for novice learners.
Keywords: collaborative dialogue; dictogloss; focus on form; interaction; vocabulary learning
Productive vocabulary knowledge is indispensable for both oral and written communication.
Research shows that vocabulary learning, especially of the productive type, can be pursued more
effectively when done collaboratively with a peer, given its claimed effectiveness for meaning
negotiation and interactionally modified output (Ellis & He, 1999; Newton, 1995) and through enhanced
engagement with vocabulary (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Schmitt, 2008). However, students tend to use
limited vocabulary learning strategy typically through rote memorization particularly owing to limitedclass time allocated to vocabulary instruction in EFL context (Hunt & Beglar, 2005). Nation (2001)
claimed that there are four prominent strands for vocabulary learning: meaning-focused input,
meaning-focused output, language-focused learning, and fluency development. Laufer and Nation(2012) also suggested some features of well-designed vocabulary learning programs which includes:
opportunities to pay attention to a variety of aspects of vocabulary knowledge, and monitor and test
vocabulary knowledge. There are some vocabulary focused activities such as filling in the blanks andchoosing definitions for words used for reading in many EFL textbooks but teachers and learners areoften not sure of the best way to achieve vocabulary learning (Schmitt, 2008). This paper explores
whether two collaborative activities which involve the features mentioned above promote greater gains
in vocabulary knowledge than an individual activity and if there are any different effects between the
two activities.

71

Literature Review

Collaborative Learning
Research over the past three decades has demonstrated that collaborative learning during tasks
can facilitate second language vocabulary acquisition, contingent upon learner interaction (e.g., Kim,
2008; Kuiken & Vedder, 2002; Swain & Lapkin, 2001; Williams, 2001). As Swain (1985, 1995) mentions in
her Output Hypothesis, output provides learners with opportunities to test their hypotheses about
language use. Additionally, feedback from interlocutors in negotiating meaning enhances language
development because it enables learners to notice the gap between their interlanguage and the target
language, focusing on the usage of vocabulary and grammar rules to solve the problems.
In sociocultural research, collaborative dialogue in which learners engage in pooling theirknowledge together and giving feedback to each other is considered an important mediator of second
language (L2) learning. Language related episodes (LREs) is any part of a dialogue used to identify
whether learners consciously reflect on their own language use. Studies on learners’ LREs provide some
implications for what should be considered in the use of collaborative activities in language teaching.
One of the implications is for the quality of outcome of LREs depending on students’ proficiency.
Williams (2001) examined the impact of satisfactorily resolved LREs on ESL students’ language learningand differential effects of LREs depending on proficiency level of English. She analyzed grammatical andvocabulary LREs of eight learners, two from four different proficiency levels during listening andspeaking lessons for an eight-week classroom treatment and scores on a tailor-made test on which
linguistic items were chosen from the correct resolution of LREs. Results of the post-test administered
one week after the treatment indicated that learners gave correct answers when they successfully
resolved in LREs with peers. The higher proficiency participants were more likely to have benefit frominformation provided by their peers and teachers. They generated more LREs and solved more problems
and performed apparently higher scores on the post-test than the lower proficiency participants. The
results of analysis for information supplier also indicated that the higher proficiency participants had
more benefit from the information from their peers than the lower proficiency participants, who weremore likely to benefit from teacher prompting feedback. However, examining an initiator of LREs andsubsequent correct test scores, she found that regardless of their proficiency level, the participants
equally tended to remember the form in focus no matter who initiated the problems.
Another implication is the relationship between successful deliberate attention to form andlanguage acquisition in terms of collaborative or individual condition. Kim (2008) explored the effect of acollaborative task on vocabulary acquisition for Korean as a second language learners in intermediateclasses. She compared the effects of dictogloss tasks in two different situations: individual andcollaborative. Findings of her study showed that there was no statistically significant difference between
two conditions in the number of LREs produced but the participants working collaboratively resolved
LREs more correctly than those who worked on the task individually. Furthermore, they performedmuch better on the vocabulary tests than the individual group. She suggested that the collaborative
group made use of their partner’s knowledge when they face problems in constructing sentences while
the individual group tended to leave the problems unresolved because of no resource besides their own
knowledge to use.
However, there are some contradictory results in the study by Kuiken and Vedder (2002). They
compared collaborative and individual conditions of dictogloss to examine which condition facilitatedacquisition of EFL high school students’ passive structures to a greater extent. Their findings indicatedthat there was no statistically significant difference between two conditions on scores of the post-test, a
type of detection test in which the learners were asked to underline eight passive structures containedin 32 sentences. Additionally, they also found that there was no significant difference between two
72

groups in the ratio of passive structures used in the reconstructed sentences. Looking into LREs, theysuggest that the students noticed the target linguistic forms through interaction, but the outcome of the
discussion resulted in them choosing easier grammar structures, which implies noticing grammar rules
through interaction did not lead to frequent use of the passive structures in reconstructed sentences.
Recent studies have provided evidence that explicit instruction has a superior effect on language
learning to spontaneous focus on form (Li et al., 2016, Spada & Tomita, 2010). Furthermore, Williams(2001) suggested that lower proficiency learners probably need to have prompting feedback fromteachers. Hence, less proficient students may require external, supplementary resources to refer towhen making decisions with their peers, although Kuiken & Vedder (2002) did not mention theparticipants’ English proficiency levels except for their experience in taking English program in Spain forfive years.
The other implication is for task types. Storch (1998) compared qualities of LREs produced by ESL
dyads when engaging in four tasks: multiple choice, rational definition (cloze), text reconstruction, andcomposition. The results showed that the text reconstruction tasks (i.e., dictogloss) enhanced attention
to grammatical choices the most, whereas the cloze tasks did so the least. She reported that morestructured tasks allowed learners to focus on grammar to a lesser degree. Hence, the text
reconstruction tasks performed by dyads seemed to have offered more possibilities to encouragelearners to focus on linguistic forms. Alegría de la Colina and Garcia Mayo (2007) also expanded herfindings. They compared three activities such as a jigsaw, a text reconstruction and a dictogloss. Fourpairs from 12 selected low proficiency pairs from EFL content- based program in university completed
each task. Analysis of LREs indicated that the learners generated the greatest number of LREs and turns
when performing the text reconstruction activity followed by jigsaw and dictogloss. They also found thatthe jigsaw activity triggered a large number of lexical LREs due to its nature of eliciting negotiation of
meaning. However, a comparison of LREs correctly resolved across the tasks indicated that the text
reconstruction activity generated lowest percentages of correct solutions in the three activities while
the dictogloss yielded highest percentages of correct solutions. These studies reported the effects ofdifferent task types and learners’ proficiency on both grammatical and lexical LREs, and provided mixed
results. Furthermore, neither study of Storch (1998) nor Alegría de la Colina and Garcia Mayo (2007)
examined the relationship between frequency of focus on form and second language acquisition.
Components to Enhance Vocabulary Learning
One of the components to enhance vocabulary retention is the number of retrievals of word (e.g.,
Folse, 2006; Laufer & Rozokski-Roitblat, 2011). Another component is engagement and noticing. Schmitt(2008) argued that increasing the opportunities to engage with words was the most prominent principle
for maximizing vocabulary learning. Studies have shown that the words are retained better when they
are negotiated than those not negotiated (Ellis, Tanaka, & Yamazaki, 1994; Newton, 1995). Laufer (2006)
compared two groups of learners: One group completed meaning-focused activities (focus-on-form
group), and the other group engaged in a form-focused activity (focus-on-forms group). The focus-onform group read a text containing target words and then answered comprehension questions. They
were advised to use a dictionary whenever they felt the need for it. The focus-on-forms groupmemorized words in a list and completed sentences. She also examined the effectiveness of subsequent
intentional learning with a word list. Her findings showed that the focus-on-forms group statisticallysignificantly gained the target words more than the focus-on-form group, but the subsequent
intentional learning weakened the difference between the two groups. In his study examining the effectof two task types, writing and reading, on vocabulary acquisition, Webb (2005) argued that time spenton the task was one of the most important factors to acquire vocabulary. Productive tasks could be73

more effective on the gains of all aspect of vocabulary acquisition over receptive tasks as learners tendto spend more time on productive tasks in a real learning situation, which is different from laboratory
research.
Dictogloss
As a psychological approach to TBLT, dictogloss (Wajnryb, 1990) is a teaching technique thatcreates opportunities for learners to learn words in context through interaction. Learners are asked tolisten to a passage and work together in small groups to reconstruct the original passage during a
dictogloss task. This method helps induce the cognitive process of noticing specific language features
through input and pushed output through which learners hypothesize how the target language works
and test such hypotheses (Loschky & Bley-Vroman, 1993; Swain & Lapkin, 1995). Swain and Lapkin(1995) claimed that productive tasks are important and effective for L2 acquisition when learners work
together and focus on forms, meaning, and functions of the language through feedback from theirpeers.
The Current Study
The previous studies on dictogloss and collaborative learning tend to be conducted with ESL(English as a second language) learners (e.g., Storch, 1998; Williams, 2001) or EFL intermediate
proficiency (English as a foreign language) learners (e.g., Kuiken & Vedder, 2002) and EFL students in
CLILL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) program (e.g., Alegría de la Colina & Garcia Mayo,2007). However, there were few studies examining the efficacy of collaborative tasks on vocabularyretention of novice learners of English in an EFL context. Moreover, although previous studies support
the effectiveness of collaborative activities for vocabulary acquisition and more structured activities
such as dictogloss promote correct resolution of LREs, lower proficiency students may not benefit somuch from collaborative activities as cautioned in some prior studies.
Thus, the aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of two different activities (i.e.,
meaning and form focused activity, a dictogloss and a more form-focused exercise) and conditions (i.e.,
individual and dyad) for learning vocabulary in an EFL classroom setting with relatively low proficiency
learners. At the time of the experiment, the participants tended to learn new words by writing andpronouncing isolated words repeatedly, rather than learning or using them in context or learning theirderivational affixes. They also had a tendency to individually practice learned vocabulary throughactivities such as matching words with their definitions and filling in blanks, which are commonly used in
textbooks. Hence, the present study explored the effects of collaborative learning and a dictogloss
activity, an integrated four skills activity, on novice EFL learners’ acquisition of vocabulary. The researchquestions addressed in this study are:
1. Are collaborative learning conditions more effective than an individual condition in promoting
the novice English learners’ vocabulary learning?
2. Are there any differences in the effects of a meaning and form focused activity such as a
dictogloss task and a form-focused exercise on the students’ vocabulary learning? How do theparticipants in meaning and form focused activity and form-focused activity perceive theactivity they were assigned?

74

Methods

Participants
The participants were 82 university students in three intact reading and writing classes at ascience and engineering department. They were first year students enrolled in a compulsory English
course that took place once a week for 15 weeks a semester. English proficiency of the experimental
and comparison group is basic users of English, or CEFR A1-A2 level, based on their scores on the reading
part of the TOEIC Bridge test administered at the beginning of the semester (dictogloss group: M=35.9,
SD=3.7; comparison group: M=34.5, SD =4.7). There were no statistically significant differences between
the two groups in terms of their initial proficiency levels (t (52) =1.21, p=.65). The control group did nottake the TOEIC Bridge test but was considered to be a higher proficiency group than the other twogroups based on a university-made placement test administered at the beginning of the school year.
Their mean scores on the placement test was 76.9 (SD =2.1) out of 100 points while those for theexperimental group was 73.7 (SD =2.9) and the comparison group was 71.8 (SD =1.5).
The experimental group (n=31) performed a dictogloss, in which learners listened to a passage
and worked in pairs to reconstruct the original passage. A comparison group (n=24) collaboratively
worked on a fill-in-the-blanks exercise in pairs. A control group (n=27) individually worked on the sameactivity as the comparison group.
Materials
A dictogloss task was implemented based on a textbook, Reading Explorer (Douglas & Bohlke,2015). Each unit consisted of a text with about 300 to 400 words. A summary of a unit was used for the
dictogloss task. Three different lengths of texts (i.e., 73 words, 80 words, and 136 words) and topics(e.g., Living in Space) were piloted in order to decide the appropriate length of the text for dictogloss forthis particular group of learners in the previous lessons. Based on the observations of the time spent oneach length of text, the most appropriate length for the participants was 80 words because most ofthem finished their discussion in twenty minutes. It was ideal length of time for the participants tocomplete the whole procedure of dictogloss in thirty minutes, including the listening stage. This study
attempted to control the time spent on the activity within thirty munities. However, the summary of theunit in the textbook was 149 words in length, which contained 13 target words and few complex
grammatical structures. Therefore, it was divided into two sections: one composed of 80 words and theother section composed of 69 words. These two passages were used in the dictogloss tasks in this study(see Appendix A). The participants in the experimental group made a group of four with randomly
assigned pair. Each pair discussed to reconstruct the text in ten minutes after they were asked to focus
on either of two sections when listening to the passages read out by the teacher. Finally, they shared
the information that each pair discussed with the other half of a group in ten minutes. They wereencouraged to help other half of their group to reconstruct the passage. In this way, the pair work
expanded into group work during the last part of discussion so that all students could possibly haveopportunities to pay attention to form or meaning in both sections during the group discussion.
Target words. Target words were selected from the textbook based on the words introduced as
new words each chapter. The words used were as follow:
attract, available, embassy, factor, influence, measure, organization, politics, population, potential,
predict, resident, talented
These words are on the second or third level of the new general frequency list based on the
vocabulary profilers (http://www.lextutor.ca/vp/comp/). This study employed pre-test, immediate posttest, and delayed post-test design. Vocabulary Knowledge Scale was used as a testing instrument for all
tests, which will be mentioned later. The results of the pre-test showed that about 44% of the target
75

words were known by the experimental group, 39% by the comparison group, and 46% by the control
group.
Form-focused exercise. This study examined the efficacy of two different activities forvocabulary learning, accordingly a dictogloss, or meaning and form focused activity, and a fill-in-theblank, or form-focused activity. The participants in the comparison and control group read the original
passages from the textbook with the target words bolded and performed the fill-in-the-blank activity
after answering reading comprehension questions (see Reading Explorer, Douglas & Bohlke, 2015, p. 6467). In the form-focused activity, the participants were asked to search in the text to find the words thatwent with the meanings.
Mini dictionary. As shown in the previous studies involving the dictogloss task (Kim, 2008;
Swain, 1998), learners do not learn linguistic items that they fail to resolve the problems associatedwith. Moreover, in the study that the researcher conducted (Kawakami, 2016), it was found that lower
proficiency students sometimes left the problems unsolved because they lacked the knowledge ofvocabulary in use and tended not to look it up in their dictionary. In order to reduce this task complexityand provide equal opportunity for access to the meaning and usage of each target word, a mini
dictionary was created for the current study based on Folse (2006). Both the experimental andcomparison groups were allowed to refer to the mini dictionary during the discussion of their task,
whereas the control group was allowed to refer to their own dictionary (as they would in their usual
English classes). The mini dictionary contained the target vocabulary with its meaning and parts ofspeech in Japanese and two sample sentences (see Figure 1).
・embassy(名詞）大使館
When I lost my passport, I had to contact the British Embassy.
There was a protest outside the American Embassy last night.
Figure 1. An entry of mini dictionary.
Measurement instrument. Vocabulary knowledge was measured using a modified version of the
vocabulary knowledge scale (VKS; Paribakht & Wesche, 1997) with a pre-test and two post-tests:
immediate post-tests and unexpected delayed post-tests three weeks after the treatment. The VKS was
modified based on Folse (2006). Although the original version of VKS measured learners’ familiarity ofvocabulary with a five-point scale, this test consisted of questions on three different word knowledge
aspects. In the VKS, the participants were asked to indicate their degree of knowledge for all thirteen
target words ranging fromⅠto Ⅲ. If the participants had seen the word but could not remember its
meanings, they were supposed to circle categoryⅠ. If they knew the meanings, they wrote its
meanings, which was in category Ⅱ. If they know how to use the word in context, they needed toprovide a sample sentence in categoryⅢ.
The VKS were scored by two experienced EFL instructors. The Pearson’s r for inter-rater
reliability was .98 for the pre-test, post-test, and delayed post-test. Scoring of the tests was conductedbased on Paribakht and Wesche (1997) but modified in the following way. One point was given if thestudent either indicated categoryⅠand Ⅱ with incorrect meaning. Two points were awarded if thestudents indicated category Ⅱ with the correct definition and part of speech. For example, if an answer
given for a target word, attract, was 魅了, which is a noun in Japanese, it was considered one point
because it should be 魅了する (a verb form) instead of 魅了 (a noun) and thus the part of speech used
is incorrect. Three points were given for category Ⅲ with an incorrect usage of the word in an example
76

sentence. Four points were awarded for category Ⅲ if a correct example sentence with the target word
was provided. Thus, the maximum score for each word was four points on both meaning and usage
recall knowledge. The highest possible scores in each of the three tests was 52 points.
In addition, after the delayed post-test, the participants in the experimental and comparisongroups received an open-ended questionnaire in which they were asked how effective they considered
the dictogloss task or how they perceived the group work. They also replied to questions on the
difficulty of the activity, how they used the mini dictionary, and group work in general. The control
group were not asked to answer the questionnaire because they were not intervened by pedagogicaltreatments but they just worked on vocabulary practice activities individually as usual. The
questionnaire can be found in Appendix B.
Procedures
At the beginning of the lesson, all the participants took the VKS test as a pre-test. In the firststage of the lesson, the participants explicitly learned the meaning of the target vocabulary on ahandout by looking them up in a regular dictionary. After that, in order to get the gist of the passage andactivate their background knowledge of the topic, they read a text and answered comprehension
questions (see Reading Explorer, Douglas & Bohlke, 2015, p. 64-67 for these materials). In the second
stage, each group worked on different tasks. The experimental group performed the dictogloss task for
30 minutes. During the dictogloss task, the participants listened to a summary of the text that they justread twice at a normal speed, taking notes on its content during the second listening. Then, they worked
in pairs to reconstruct the passage. The students were encouraged to discuss in English but most of thestudents used Japanese to check their comprehension. Upon task completion, they were asked to checktheir version with the original passage. The comparison group worked on form-focused activities for 30
minutes in pairs in Japanese. They worked on the exercises by themselves at first and discussed theiranswers with their peers. The control group worked on the same activity as the comparison group did
but individually instead of with a partner (see Figure 2).
Group

Experimental group

Comparison group

Collaborative

Condition

Control group
Individual

Pretest (VKS)
LessonReading and Comprehension questions
Dictogloss

Language practiceLanguage practice

Posttest1 (VKS)
3 weeks after
the lesson

Posttest2 (VKS)

Figure 2. Lesson sequence.
Results
The first research question asked the effects of collaborative learning conditions in promoting
the students’ vocabulary learning. It is confirmed that the data was not normally distributed based on
the results of histogram and Shapio-Wilk test. Examining the descriptive statistics, the experimentalgroup made the biggest increase in the median scores between the pre-test and the immediate posttest. Their median score in the delayed post-test was still higher than the other two groups. In order toexamine the difference between the three groups in the three tests, a Kruskal-Wallis test followed by apost-hoc analysis of the Mann-Whitney test using the Bonferroni correction test (with the resulting
α=.017) was employed as the number of the participants was relatively small and scores were not77

normally distributed. Table 1 shows the results of non-parametric ANOVA (Kruskal-Wallis test) acrossthree testing times. The results revealed that there was no statistically significant difference between
three groups in the pre-test scores but showed a significant group effect (χ2=12.592, p=.002) in the two
post-tests. A Mann-Whitney test as a pairwise test revealed that the experimental group performed
better than the other two groups in the two post-tests. Results are shown in Table 2. The comparisongroup also gained more vocabulary than the control group and there were statistically significant
differences between them on the immediate post-test, but no statistically significant difference wasfound on the delayed post-test.
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for VKS Scores
PretestPosttest 1

Posttest 2

Group

n

median

min.

max.

SD

median

min.

max.

SD

median

min.

max.

SD

Experimental

31

21

13

40

7.69

33

15

52

8.48

30

17

50

9.06

Comparison

24

18.5

11

39

6.84

28.5

24

52

6.5

24

17

48

8.00

Control

27

24

15

37

6.94

26

18

47

6.59

23

14

35

5.18

Table 2
Pairwise ComparisonsGroup

PretestPosttest 1

Posttest 2

p

r

p

r

p

r

G1-G2

0.07

0.17

0.01

0.29

0.02

0.26

G1-G3

0.13

0.12

0.00

0.44

0.00

0.41

G2-G3

0.01

0.28

0.04

0.22

0.13

0.12

Note. G1 = Experimental group, G2 = Comparison group, G3 = Control group

The second research question addressed the difference in the effectiveness of the two activity
types. Figure 3 graphically displays the summary of three group’s vocabulary scores in the three tests.
The boxplot shows that the median of the pre-test scores in the control group was higher than those in
the other groups. Although the gains for the two treatment groups overlap, the median of theexperimental group was higher than that of the comparison group. Of the three groups, only theexperimental group appears to have a relatively normal distribution on the immediate post-test andboth the comparison group and control group positively skewed. Furthermore, as the pair of whiskers of
the experimental group is longer than those of other two groups, there seemed to be more variations in
the group’s scores of the experimental group. Thus, the participants in the comparison group responded
more uniformly to the treatment, with the majority of them showing improvements, compared to thosein the experimental group. A Friedman test followed by post-hoc analysis of Wilcoxon signed-rank testwith Boferroni correction (α=.017) was employed to statistically examine within group effect. All groups
improved their test scores from pre-test to the immediate post-test and decreased their scores at thedelayed post-test. The two groups in the collaborative condition significantly increased their scores fromthe pre-test to the immediate post-test with a large effect size (the experimental group: r=.50; thecomparison group: r=.50) whereas the control group increased their scores in the same time period witha medium effect size (r=.32). The collaborative groups also better retained from the pre-test to thedelayed post-test with a large effect size (the experimental group: r=.46; the comparison group: r=.40)
than the control group, which showed almost no effect size (r=.03).

78

Figure 3. Comparison of threegroup’s vocabulary test scores.

79

The second research question includes how the participants in meaning and form focused
activity and form-focused activity perceive the activity they were assigned. Table 3 includes the exit
questionnaire distributed to the participants in both the experimental and comparison group after thetreatment. In this questionnaire, the participants of both treatment groups were asked to reply to thequestions regarding how they perceived the activities and how well they worked collaboratively. The
results revealed that most participants in both groups felt the difficulty of the task they worked on wasappropriate but more participants in the experimental (dictogloss) group felt the target task was difficult(10%). Next, most participants in both groups considered their collaborative work to be successful. It
also revealed that more participants in the comparison (vocabulary practice activities) group used themini dictionary to refer to target words usage than those in the experimental group. The experimentalgroup used the dictionary to refer to the meaning of target words (instead of usage) more often than did
the comparison group. However, some students who answered that they used their dictionary during
the task did not mention how they used it.
Table 3Results of the Questionnaire on the Participants’ Perception of the Tasks
Dictogloss

Vocabulary
practice activities

Difficult.

10%

0%

A little bit difficult.

27%

25%

Appropriate

60%

71%

A little bit easy.

3%

0%

Easy.

0%

4%

Dictogloss

Vocabulary
practice activities

I created collaborative atmosphere and often provided my partner with feedback.

80%

83.3%

I created collaborative atmosphere but failed to provide my partner with feedback.

20%

8.3%

I tried to be collaborative but my partner didn't.

0%0%

My partner was collaborative but I wasn't.

0%

8.3%

Dictogloss

Vocabulary
practice activities

I used it when discussing usages of the vocabulary

17%

83.3%

I used it when discussing meanings of the vocabulary

50%

8.3%

I used my dictionary instead of it.

17%

0%

I hardly used it.

13%

8.3%

I used both the dictionary and mini-dictionary

3%0%

Degree of Difficulty

Pair work
Questions

Minidictionary
Questions80Discussion
With respect to the first research question, there was a statistically significant difference
between the participants in the collaborative conditions and those in the individual condition. Both theexperimental group and the comparison group in the collaborative conditions increased their vocabulary
scores more than the control group after the treatment. However, the statistically significant differenceswere observed only between the experimental group and the control group three weeks after thetreatment. As some previous studies (e.g., Kim, 2008; Storch, 2005) showed, the collaborative groups
would have had more time to be exposed to the target words than the individual group. LREs between
pairs in the meaning and form focused activity showed that the participants had opportunities toexchange and add words and phrases they heard, negotiate the meaning of the target words, and getcorrective feedback from their pairs in their text completion as seen in the example 1, 2, and 3.
Example 1: Exchange and add words and phrases heard
S1: I heard something like business is done.
S2: Yeah, something like… “International business is done there”, right?
S1: Oh, yeah.
Example 2: Negotiation of word meaning
S1: I heard organization.
S2: Organization….what does it mean?
S1: It means soshiki in Japanese, like a local government? Uh…, in this sentence, the number oforganizations are measured in the index for the politics. I guess.
S2: I see.
Example 3: Feedback on form from peers
S1: ... Should the ending of cities be written as y or i ?
S2: Well, y should be changed into i, right?
S1: OK.
The participants in the meaning and form focused activity seemed to be engaged with the targetwords through LREs by negotiating meanings and providing feedback on forms. On the other hand, theform-focused activity group tended to focus more on the meaning of the target words alone as shown in
the examples 1 and 2 below.
Example 1: Asking and answering questions
S1: When you blur.. blur.. blur, you say…(reading out a sentence in an vocabulary exercise) …Oh,
this is “predict”, isn’t it?
S2: What?
S1: This is “predict”, isn’t it?
S2: Yosoku suru (in Japanese)? When you “predict” something, you say something might
happen….
S1: Yes, something might happen later, right?
S2: Will or might happen, okorisouna koto (in Japanse).... You’re right.
Example 2: Negotiation of word meaning
S1: a person.. blah blah blah, over something has power to tianji, change (self-corrected). Kawaru
kanousei right? ... possibility…what was that?... “available?”81

S2: Well, no… that means “able to be used” . So, how about this, pa, pa, poter...
S1: Potential?
S2: Oh, potential! That’s it!
The second research question addressed the effects of two activity types on the students’vocabulary learning. Both tasks seem to be effective for the participants’ vocabulary learning but not
the case for retention. The meaning and form focused activity yielded statistically significantly higher
results than the form-focused activity in the delayed post-test. This could be because the dictogloss task
takes on generative characteristics in vocabulary learning. Nation and Webb (2011) suggested achecklist for technique feature analysis with five different criteria by looking at goals, learning
conditions, and design features of activities. In their checklist, one point is given for each question in thefive criteria (i.e., Motivation, Noticing, Retrieval, Generation, and Retention) when evaluating vocabulary
learning techniques or activities. The possible highest number of points is 18 as shown in Table 4. Taking
a look at the generation features in the criteria, the dictogloss gains three points whereas the fill in blankgains zero. Research findings suggest that tasks involving meaning negotiation and generative use of
vocabulary facilitate the acquisition of new words (Ellis & He, 1999; Joe, 1995; Newton, 1995). The
results of this study are consistent with the findings of the previous studies. On the other hand, the fillin- the-blanks activity seemed to have facilitated their vocabulary learning more equally considering theresult that the participants in the comparison group responded more uniformly to the treatment thanthose in the experimental group. The fill-in-the-blanks activity was potentially cognitively lessdemanding than the dictogloss task. The participants were asked to simply choose an appropriate wordfrom the passage to complete the written sentences in the fill-in-the-blank exercises, whereas thedictogloss task required the participants to reproduce the passage they heard based on their notes andmemory. The different degree of cognitive demands might have affected the participants’ performancesof each group.
There are some limitations to the current study. Although the effectiveness of the dictogloss
task was confirmed in this study, for this task to be used effectively in the classroom, further practice of
the activity is needed, especially with lower proficiency learners. In the current study, the participantstended to focus on the sound of each word, not necessarily the meaning at first, while listening to thepassages read aloud. Consequently, they might have failed to catch the target words when listening
although they became used to listening to longer phrases and listening for the gist of the passage as
they practiced. Moreover, there is a need for further studies to examine the relationship between
outcomes of the LREs generated in the activities that encourages learners to focus on form with theirpeers and their vocabulary acquisition, comparing with the control group that performs the same task
individually.
Conclusion
The three different conditions examined in the present study provided supplementary evidence
for the benefits of collaborative activities for L2 vocabulary learning, even for relatively low proficiency
English learners. The findings suggest that novice learners can benefit from the dictogloss activity if theactivity is carefully designed in a task supported lesson and provides language support, such as a mini
dictionary for the learners to refer to when they reconstruct the text. As was mentioned in the
introduction section, Nation (2001)’s four prominent strands for vocabulary learning should beincorporated in course syllabi. English teachers at universities should create opportunities for theirstudents to learn through these four strands, especially meaning-focused input and output with82

deliberate attention to language forms in classroom, which many of the learners have scarcely had
before they enter university. To this end, a dictogloss task is a good one to start with.
Table 4
Technique Feature Analysis
Criteria

Motivation

Noticing

RetrievalGeneration

Retention

Dictogloss

Fill in blanks

Is there a clear vocabulary learning goal?

0

1

Does the activity motivate learning?

1

1

Do the learners select the words?

1

1

Does the activity focus attention on the target words?

1

1

Does the activity raise awareness of new vocabulary learning?

1

1

Does the activity involve negotiation?

1

1

Does the activity involve retrieval of the word?

1

1

Is it productive retrieval?

10

Is it recall?

1

1

Are there multiple retrievals of each word?

10

Is there spacing between retrievals?

00Does the activity involve generative use?

10

Is it productive?

1

0

Is there a marked change that involves the use of other words?

10Does the activity ensure successful linking of form and meaning?

1

1

Does the activity involve instantiation?

1

1

Does the activity involve imaging?

1

0

Does the activity avoid interference? (confusion of similar words)
Total score

1

1

16

11

Note. Adapted with permission from Nation and Webb, 2011.

References
Alegría de la Colina, A., & García Mayo, M. P. (2007). Attention to form across collaborative tasks by lowproficiency learners in an EFL setting. In M. P. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal
language learning (pp. 91–116). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Douglas, N., & Bohlke, D. (2015). Reading explorer. Boston, MA: National Geographic Learning.
Ellis, R., & He, X. (1999). The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word
meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 285–301.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263199002077
Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y., & Yamazaki, A. (1994). Classroom interaction, comprehension, and the acquisition of
L2 word meanings. Language Learning, 44, 449–491. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14671770.1994.tb01114.x
Folse, K. (2006). The effect of types of written exercise on L2 vocabulary retention. TESOL Quarterly, 40,
273–293. https://doi.org/10.2307/40264523
Hulstijn, J., & Laufer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis invocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51, 539–558. https://doi.org/10.1111/00238333.00164
83

Hunt, A., & Beglar, D. (2005). A framework for developing EFL reading vocabulary. Reading in a Foreign
Language, 17, 23–59.
Kawakami, M. (2016, September). Exploring the effect of a collaborative task on vocabulary acquisition:
The role of language-related episodes during a dictogloss. Paper presented at the 6th Annual
Vocabulary Symposium 2017, Tokyo.
Kim, Y. (2008). The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of L2 vocabulary.
The Modern Language Journal, 92, 114–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00690.x
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2002). The effect of interaction in acquiring the grammar of a second language.
International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 343–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/S08830355(03)00009-0
Laufer, B. (2006). Comparing Focus on Form and Focus on FormS. The Canadian Modern Language
Review, 63, 149–166. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.63.1.149
Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (2012). Vocabulary. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of
second language acquisition (pp. 163–176). Abingdon, England: Routledge.
Laufer, B., & Rozokski-Roitblat, B. (2011). Incidental vocabulary acquisition: The effects of task type,word occurrence and their combination. Language Teaching Research, 15, 391–411.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168811412019
Li, S., Ellis, R., & Zhu, Y. (2016). Task-based versus task-supported language instruction: An experimental
study. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 205–229.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190515000069
Loschky, L., & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and Task-based Methodology. In G. Crookes & S. M.
Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning (pp. 123–167). Clevedon, England: Multilingual
Matters.
Nation, P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Nation, P., & Webb, S. (2011). Researching and analyzing vocabulary. Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage
Learning.
Newton, J. (1995). Task-based instruction and incidental vocabulary learning: A case study. Second
Language Research, 11, 159–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/026765839501100207
Paribakht, T.S., & Wesche, M. (1997). Vocabulary enhancement activities and reading for meaning insecond language vocabulary acquisition. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language
vocabulary acquisition: A rational for pedagogy (pp.174–202). Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Schmitt, N. (2008). Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 12,
329–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089921
Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A
meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 263–308. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14679922.2010.00562.x
Storch, N. (1998). Comparing second language learners’ attention to form across tasks. Language
Awareness, 7, 176–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658419808667108
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 14, 153–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.05.002
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input andcomprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second
language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
84Swain, M. (1995). The three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer(Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics (pp.125–144). Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus
on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64–81). Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive process they generate: a step
towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–391.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.3.371
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In
M. Bygate, P. Skehan & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning,teaching, and testing (pp. 99–118). New York, NY: Longman.
Wajnryb, R. (1990). Grammar dictation. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Webb, S. (2005). Receptive and productive vocabulary learning: The effects of reading and writing onword knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 33–52.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263105050023
Williams, J. (2001). The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System, 29, 325–340.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00022-7

85

Appendix A
Dictogloss text
An introduction part of the passage printed on the participants’ handout:
The Global Cities Index is a list of the world’s most powerful and important cities. The index measures 5
factors such as business, people, media, entertainment, and politics.
Text A
Business measures if the city does international business. People measures if the city attracts talented
people. Media measures the variety of media sources available and the number of residents who haveInternet access. Entertainment measures if the city has a lot of entertainment options. Politics measures
the number of embassies and organizations. (80 words)
Text B
With these 5 factors, the creators of the index predict growth in certain areas. In Asia, some Chinese
cities will grow, especially in the area of business. Some cities in India have also business potential.
Cities in Turkey and Egypt will have more influence in international business and politics. With the
majority of the world’s population living in urban areas, tomorrow’s global cities will be more powerfulthan ever. (69 words)

86

Appendix B
Questionnaire
Check the phrase or sentence best describes you.
a. The difficulty of an activity: How much difficult did you feel about the activity?
It was (□ very difficult / □ difficult/ □ neither easy nor hard/ □ easy/ □ very easy).
b. How did you use the mini dictionary?
□ I used it when I discuss how to use the target words with my partner.
□ I used it when I discuss the meanings of the target words with my partner.
□ I did not use it because I used my own regular dictionary.
□ Others: ()
c. Collaboration with your partner□ I had a good collaboration with my partner and exchanged useful feedback in discussion.
□ I had a good collaboration with my partner but I could not suggest his/ her mistakes and failed
to construct correct sentences.
□ I was collaborative but my partner was not.
□ My partner was collaborative but I was not.
d. How did you perceive the activity?
()

87Chapter 8
Task-Based English Curriculum Innovation for Computer Science Majors in Japan:
Preliminary Report
Emiko Kaneko1, Moonyoung Park2, Ian Wilson1, Debopriyo Roy1,
Younghyon Heo1, Takako Yasuta1, John Blake1, and Allan Nicholas1(1University of Aizu, 2Chinese University of Hong Kong)
Abstract
This paper describes the implementation of the first few phases of task-based English language program
development (Long & Norris, 2000); namely, identifying target tasks with a needs analysis survey,
classifying the target tasks into task-types, and devising pedagogical tasks. The developed curriculum is
for Japanese learners of English who are majoring in computer science and engineering with lowintermediate English proficiency. A curriculum working group, which consisted of language teachingexperts, chose 38 skill-based target tasks. With these tasks, an online needs analysis survey was
conducted. The survey asked professors of computer science, mathematics, physics, and humanities tograde the importance of the 38 target tasks. Based on the results of the survey, 20 task-types, whichmediate between target tasks and pedagogical tasks, were created. Taking the English proficiency of thestudents into consideration, two new supporting tasks to assist them in achieving the target tasks werealso added. The 22 tasks were distributed over seven core courses for first- and second-year students
and a thesis writing course for fourth-year students. Five course designers then developed pedagogicaltasks from the task-types. Since the new curriculum was implemented in the spring of 2018, task
sequencing based on the complexity as well as task-based assessment remain as future work.
Keywords: computer science and engineering majors; English-as-a-foreign-language curriculum
development; Japanese learners of English; needs analysis; Task-Based Language Teaching
By the time of admission to university, Japanese students have studied English for at least six
years. However, according to the results of a survey conducted in 2014 by the Ministry of Education,
Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), 87.2% of the students in the twelfth grade (the thirdyear of high school) achieve only the A1 level of the Common European Framework for Reference (CEFR)
in oral proficiency, with a peak in the lower range of A1 (MEXT, 2015). Though many have started
learning English earlier recently, which is conceivably improving the situation, it remains true thatJapanese students do not have enough training in using English in real-world situations.
While many Japanese 18-year-olds remain in the lower A1 level, the importance of English as a
lingua franca is increasing; it is the major communication tool in global business as well as in academia.
It is crucial for Japanese university students to be exposed to authentic language use before they
graduate.
In the university where this curriculum innovation project took place, all the students major incomputer science and engineering. As future experts in information and communication technology(ICT), they need to acquire specific English skills, because advanced ICT knowledge becomes available
first in English, and even those working in venture or smaller companies must communicate withinternational ICT engineers in English. More urgently, the students are required to take subject-mattercourses in English as a medium of instruction (EMI) and write/present their graduation research in
English to graduate. Considering these short-term and long-term requirements of the students, the88Center for Language Research (CLR), which is in charge of the English-as-a-Foreign-Language (EFL)
education in the university, undertook curriculum innovation to devise a task-based curriculum in 2015.
The new curriculum was implemented in April 2018. This is a report of how decisions were made abouttasks to be included and how the target tasks are now incorporated into each course. Since many of the
new courses have not been taught yet (at the time of writing), this paper focuses on the process of task
selection and the preliminary ideas that course designers have about how they teach the tasks.
Background of the ProjectThis project was carried out in the undergraduate school of a computer science university
located in Fukushima Prefecture, Japan. Since its foundation, it has been a bilingual university, withapproximately 40% of the faculty members employed from overseas. Although the majority of thestudents are lower intermediate learners of English with an average Test of English for International
Communication (TOEIC) score of about 400 (approximately equivalent to TOEFL iBT 40), students are
required to take subject-matter EMI courses, read English research papers, work with international
faculty members, write a graduation thesis, and orally present it in English, suggesting that they need tolearn specifically English for Science and Technology (EST) and that the curriculum should target thosespecific needs of students. Typically, in each year students take the English classes summarized in Table
1. In this project, we revised the contents of the core courses, which are marked with an asterisk.
Table 1
Number of Courses Offered in Each Year
Q or Sa
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q1
to
Q4
S2

Year
1

2
3
4

English courses
Strongly recommended 1*
Strongly recommended 2*
Strongly recommended 3*
Strongly recommended 4*
Strongly recommended 5*
Strongly recommended 6*
Strongly recommended 7*
Two elective courses (Advanced English, content
language integrated learning, or CLIL, projectbased learning, or PBL)
Thesis Writing and Presentation*

Credits
1 credit each

2 credits each
2 credits each
1 creditaNote. Q = quarter; S = semester. Core courses are indicated with an asterisk

Task-Based Curriculum Design
Curriculum is a large and complex concept, and in this study, it refers to a program of study in
the English curriculum for computer science and engineering students. In designing it, we need toconsider (a) what language learners should learn, (b) how they can be stimulated to learn, and (c) why
they should learn. Task-based language teaching (TBLT) aims to equip learners to meet their present or
future real-world communicative needs (Doughty & Long, 2003), providing answers to these questions.
The definition of tasks is variable. In a superficial sense, tasks are activities that teachers andstudents try in the classroom, but tasks in TBLT provide guiding principles for language curriculum design(Doughty & Long, 2003). Some common features of such tasks are: (a) meaning is primary, (b) they
involve real-world processes of language use, (c) they have a clearly defined communicative outcome,89and (d) they can involve any of the four language skills (Ellis, 2003). According to Long and Norris (2000),
there are six components of the design, implementation, and evaluation of a TBLT program. The present
paper addresses the first three:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Identify real-world target tasks through a task-based needs analysis.
Classify target tasks into task-types.
Develop and sequence pedagogical tasks.
Apply TBLT methodological principles in a particular pedagogical procedure situated in thelocal context.
Assess student achievement.
Carry out formative and summative evaluation of the TBLT program.

Some examples of successfully developed TBLT programs include Curricular and Teacher
Innovation (CATI) project in an ESL program in an American University (Markee, 1996), Dutch education
programs in Flanders (Van Avermaet & Gysen, 2006), and an Aviation English Training Program in the
Korean military (Park, 2015).
The Curriculum Innovation Project
There were mainly two things motivating the revision of our old curriculum. In the former
curriculum, four different course coordinators developed the contents. Each skill-based course was a
mixture of general academic and technical English developed independently without an explicit attemptof sequencing the content between different courses. This situation was not ideal, but each course waswell thought out and worked adequately. However, in 2015, the university decided to adopt the quarter
system in order to accept more international students and encourage more students to apply to thegraduate school, which had been on the quarter system already. Because the decision was made withshort notice, the curriculum that had been developed for the semester system was adopted to thequarter system with only minimum modifications in 2016, but we realized that we needed to create a
new and better curriculum in which students start with general English and move on to more academic
and technical usage, aiming at the very final goal: writing and presenting a research paper in English.
A curriculum working group was formed with five members of the CLR in 2015, and we decided
to develop a task-based curriculum following the first three steps of the above developmental processof a TBLT program. First, in order to conduct a needs analysis survey, the working group members chose
38 target tasks, about 10 tasks for each of reading, writing, speaking, and listening skills, that seemed
important for the students. Then, an open-ended online needs analysis survey was conducted withthese items in the fall of 2016. For the purpose of incorporating computer science professors’
perception of the importance of these tasks, 112 professors were requested to grade the importancelevel of the 38 tasks, ranging from 1 (not important at all) to 6 (extremely important). They were also
encouraged to leave anonymous comments for each task. In response to our request, 31 professors(28%) contributed to the survey. Details about the implementation of the needs analysis survey and theperception of the contributors about these tasks can be found in Kaneko et al. (2018). The 38 target
tasks and their scores are included in Appendix A.
Task-Types Included in the New Curriculum
Although the curriculum working group members believed that all 38 of the tasks were
important for computer science majors with lower intermediate English proficiency, some tasks were
not evaluated as highly as we had expected by subject-matter professors. The tasks with scores lower
90

than 4.1 out of 6 in the survey were removed from consideration except for one task, “Create a poster
for an academic presentation” (3.92 points). After the needs analysis survey was conducted, theuniversity made it a graduation requirement for fourth-year students to make a poster presentation
about their graduation research six months prior to graduation. Because this decision enhanced theimportance of this task, we decided to include it in one of the courses in spite of the low evaluation in
the survey. So, six tasks were removed, and we proceeded to the next step with 32 tasks.
As mentioned earlier, we envisioned that the new curriculum would first provide instruction
about basic academic English, then later about more specific English necessary for ICT specialists andresearchers. As Table 1 indicates, elective courses in the third year and a Thesis Writing and
Presentation course in the fourth year are available to focus on that variety of English. Therefore, wechose seven tasks which would be more appropriate for these courses and eliminated them from thesubsequent curriculum revision of the first- and second-year core courses.
The next step, according to Long and Norris (2000), is to create task-types by grouping tasks
together. Creating task-types is useful because (a) it is more efficient to teach general task-types that
can transfer to specific target tasks, (b) teaching students with various occupational backgrounds
becomes possible, and (c) pedagogical tasks can be developed from the task-types (Long, 1985). Notethough that pedagogical tasks can also be derived directly from target tasks if the same target tasks areimportant for the learners and if we have enough time to teach all of them (Long, 2015). Consideringthat the students in our curriculum are all computer science majors and that they share similar purposesof learning English as discussed above, we created task-types which were not significantly more abstract
than target tasks, but we call these task-types because they mediate between target tasks andpedagogical tasks. They were created by combining target tasks that would be taught more efficiently
and effectively if presented together (e.g., “Write short email messages in English with acceptable
grammar and construction…” and “Read and understand e-mail from professors” were combined into
“Read and write short email messages in English with acceptable grammar and construction…”). In thesame way, after scrutinizing the remaining 25 target tasks, five tasks were combined with others, leaving
20 tasks. Furthermore, considering that some first-year students have not acquired very basic English
knowledge, we added two supporting tasks, “Read and understand (simple) academic text” and “Write asentence with acceptable grammar.” Teaching grammar may not be task-based, strictly speaking, but
we believe explicit instruction of grammar is effective for EFL learners with limited proficiency andlimited exposure to the target language.
With the 20 task-types and two supporting tasks, we made an overall plan for the four-year
English curriculum. We drew up the blueprint summarized in Table 2. For students studying in an EMI
university, understanding spoken and written language is of primary importance for survival. Therefore,
they need to practice receptive language skills first. They also need to orally communicate with nonJapanese professors, asking questions and conveying their concerns. When they have been exposed to a
sufficient amount of academic English, we can then safely lead them into more technical EST. The Thesis
Writing and Presentation course offered in the fourth year takes up tasks necessary to successfullycomplete and present their thesis.
Based on this blueprint, we distributed the 22 task-types and supporting tasks over the eightcore courses, as shown in Appendix B, with some task-types taken up in multiple courses.

91

Table 2
The Focus and Timing of Each Course
Course name
Quarter/Semester
Introductory English 1 and 2
Quarters 1 & 2 of Year1
Introductory English 3 and 4
Quarters 3 & 4 of Year
1
Intermediate English 1 and 2
Quarters 1 & 2 of Year
2
Intermediate English 3
Quarter 3 of Year 2
Electives
Thesis Writing and Presentation

Year 3
Semester 2 of Year 4

Focus
Receptive skills
Receptive skills plus basic speaking
Four-skills academic English
Technical writing and preparation forYear 4
Advanced English, CLIL, PBL
Thesis writing and presentation

From Task-Types to Pedagogical Tasks
Many of the 20 task-types are based on real-life needs. In order to assist students in being able
to perform these tasks, pedagogical tasks (Long, 1985) needed to be devised. Five course coordinators
were appointed, and they were asked to design a task-based course or two. For some task-types,
pedagogical tasks were already tailor-made. For others, activities in the textbooks could be used. Finally,
for the few remaining tasks, they could be taught explicitly without using a great amount of time. In
order to avoid a situation where each course was overly independent, two full-year coordinators wereassigned to overlook the four courses offered in the first year and the three courses in the second year,
respectively, and make sure the contents of the courses were consistent and were designed as we hadplanned. In each of the following subsections, we present an overview followed by a table thatsummarizes pedagogical tasks. Some skill-like tasks such as “use a spell checker properly” are notincluded, and overlapping tasks taught in more than one course are presented only once in the following
discussion.
Introductory English 1 and 2
Overview. In Introductory English 1 and 2, students work on various topics and activities related
to their interests and everyday life. Through the following class activities, students develop the four
language skills with emphasis on receptive skills:• Preparation (vocabulary quiz): Students learn new words and expressions for the lesson• Textbook-based activities: Students learn (review) the target grammar skills of the lesson• TBLT-based activities (discussion forum, face-to-face discussion, paragraph writing): Students workon activities and discuss authentic topics such as “suggestions for improving our university” using
the target grammar and new expressions they learned in class
Table 3 shows the mapping between task-types and specific pedagogical tasks to be
implemented in the classroom.

92

Table 3
Pedagogical Tasks and Activities for Introductory English 1 and 2
Task-types
Pedagogical tasks/Activities
Read or listen to and understand (teacher’s)• Expose students extensively to bothclassroom English and oral instructions, live or
spoken and written instructions
onlinenaturalistically
A list of frequently used classroom English isprovided and explained.
Read and write short email messages inEnglish with acceptable grammar andconstruction for both academic and nonacademic purposes• Practice writing email to a professor
following the instructions

Introductory English 3 and 4
Overview. In these courses, as a general overall framework for classroom tasks, a TBLT approachto structuring classroom work is frequently taken (Willis & Willis, 2007):
•
•
•
•
•

Priming the learner, introducing the topic, activating their knowledge
Preparation, employing facilitating tasks to prepare learners for the target task(s)Target task performance
Post-task activities, such as focusing on form (grammar, vocabulary)
Learner evaluation of target task, what was challenging/enjoyable, etc.

Because exposure to the L2 inside and outside of the classroom is limited, the L2 is used by bothlearners and teachers as much as possible while the L1 can be used by learners when necessary to help
smooth the flow of the lesson or to promote understanding of complex concepts. Table 4 shows thepedagogical tasks for these two courses.
Table 4
Pedagogical Tasks and Activities for Introductory English 3 and 4
Task-types
Pedagogical tasks/Activities
Read and understand (simple) academic text
• Do reading strategy practice activities (e.g.,
anaphoric references; raising awareness ofUnderstand the structure of a paragraph, i.e.,common features of academic texts, etc.)
what the main idea and its supporting details • Learn purpose for reading or listening to a text
arethrough activities• Pre-reading: pair/group discussions; prediction
activities• Reading: set up in jigsaw/expert groups, readretell, pair reading, etc.

93

Table 4 (continued).
Task-types
Listen to and understand informal face-toface English communication such as group
discussions (e.g., in-class group activities,
Global Lounge)

Talk about familiar people/things, including
themselves, to those they meet for the firsttime
Express opinions orally about topics familiar
to themDescribe/explain objects as well as theirexperience orally
Write directions, instructions, or explanations
with logic and explain a procedure

Pedagogical tasks/Activities• Engage in target communicative tasks inpairs/groups with preceding sections as task
priming of topic• Quick speaking, 4/3/2 tasks, jigsaw/expert groups
tasks with emphasis on clear communication andcomprehension• Use textbook materials• Do quick speaking and 4/3/2 tasks• Have group/pair discussions, often structured asa pyramid (students firstly talking in pairs, thensmall groups, before finally reporting to thewhole class)• Primed on the topic of food/cooking/recipes
followed by awareness-raising activities, focusing
on common features of instructional texts(grammatical, organizational)• Write a recipe of students’ favorite dishes toteach other class members

Intermediate English 1 and 2
Overview. In these courses, students learn the basics of academic English. Specifically, theylearn to summarize and express their opinions verbally or in writing. For each unit topic, students watcha model lecture and first check their understanding. Then they learn to express their opinions in a
structured verbal presentation or text, acquiring academic skills necessary for taking courses taught inEnglish. Topics of the lecture videos are from a wide range of studies such as psychology, business,engineering, and information technology. Each lecture video focuses on several points, which are
informative and provide some discussion points. Class activities center around checking theircomprehension (e.g., note-taking and answering questions) and also sharing their opinions about thediscussion points raised in the lecture (e.g., giving a group/individual presentation). Table 5 shows thepedagogical tasks for these two courses.
Table 5
Pedagogical Tasks and Activities for Intermediate English 1 and 2
Task-types
Pedagogical tasks/Activities
Verbally summarize what they read/hear• Watch a lecture video and write or verbally
report a summary of the lecture video
Formulate arguments (and/or opinions) based • Present their opinions about the topic discussed
on audio/text input in preparation for writingin the lecture video using PPT slides as part ofwriting/presentation activities
Write paragraphs and short essays by• Write a paragraph on three topics
summarizing ideas with logic, structure, andOne of the topics is tested in the midterm andacceptable grammar.
final exams
94Intermediate English 3
Overview. With a conscious awareness of EFL learners’ strategy use (Lee & Oxford, 2008) andfactors predicting effective oral presentations in EFL classrooms (Otoshi & Heffernan, 2008), this course
focuses on both academic writing and technical presentation skills. The course teaches students to
speak and write English at an intermediate to advanced level, preparing them for careers as computerscientists. The course largely highlights the importance of critical thinking and analytical abilities in
specific contexts of research content production, including brainstorming, selection, information
processing, and delivery. Further, it prepares students to make conference presentations articulately,
speak diligently and coherently, argue reasonably, and learn online content management and delivery at
an acceptable level.
Table 6
Pedagogical Tasks and Activities for Intermediate English 3
Task-types
Pedagogical tasks/Activities
Listen to and understand an academic• Watch TED talk videos while taking notes inpresentation.
class, summarize or identify key words, andwrite a summary with synonyms
Prepare and make a presentation without
notes (no reading from slides or memos)

Design a technical presentation

Create a poster for an academic presentation• Verbally summarize the main ideas in the
research with minimal readings frommemos/note cards• Screen capture their own presentation
with background voice (themselves
explaining the slides) with minimal readingfrom slides• Design a technical presentation following a
lecture on organization, layout, textgraphics coordination, etc.
• Screen capture their own presentation
Both of the above are reviewed byclassmates.
• Use VoiceTube to practice clear
pronunciation• After a lecture; create a poster on a
research topic• Do poster presentation and answer
questions from the audience

Thesis Writing and Presentation
Overview. A common thread throughout this course is the five-filter framework of accuracy,
brevity, clarity, objectivity, and formality that can be used to evaluate scientific writing. Students areprovided with guidance, examples, and tools to help them understand and apply these filters to theirwritten work. Consistency and judgement of content are subsumed within the five filters. The core
course materials comprise web-based course notes and a suite of tailor-made eLearning tools, some ofwhich are available at <http://web-ext.u-aizu.ac.jp/~jblake/resources.html>. This course is to teach one
95

task—writing and presenting a thesis—which contains several sub-tasks. In Table 7, activities for thesubtasks are summarized.
Table 7
Pedagogical Tasks and Activities for Thesis Writing and Presentation
Task-types
Pedagogical tasks/Activities
Write a graduation thesis with focus on• After being exposed to numerousorganization, layout, formatting, text-graphics
examples, select an appropriate structure
coordination, and judgement of content
for their draft thesis including section andsub-section headings• Create at least one table, one figure, andaccompanying descriptions after the use of
figures, tables, and equations is explained
and practiced
The following three tools are used:
1. Interactive genre visualizer: Explore anddiscover the rhetorical organization andlanguage features of graduation theses
2. Language feature detector: Discover thegeneric integrity of their texts byidentifying distinctive language features
3. Corpus-based error detector: Receive
automated feedback in terms of accuracy,
brevity, clarity, objectivity, and formality
Conclusion
The new curriculum is still at an embryonic stage; some of the courses have not even beentaught at the time of writing. Curriculum development is an ongoing effort. It is certain that we will needto make major and minor changes as we use this task-based curriculum in our teaching, and we believe
we will be able to gain a deeper understanding about TBLT from this process.
In the future, the complexity of the pedagogical tasks may need to be considered so that we cansequence them more appropriately. It is also hoped that a task-based assessment will be implemented
in this curriculum. However, this will depend on and be affected by other university decisions such aschanges to the entrance examination and the use of TOEIC as a promotion or graduation requirement.
Furthermore, feedback from students and teachers will be an important source of information forfurther modification of the curriculum. It would be ideal if a needs analysis survey could be conductedwith the alumni of this university, which would likely cast light on the differences in the perception ofneeds between academics and business people.
References
Doughty, C. J., & Long, M. H. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign
language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7, 50–80.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Kaneko, E., Park, M., Wilson, I., Heo, Y., Roy, D., Yasuta, T., Nicholas, A., & Blake, J. (2018). English
curriculum innovation for computer science majors in the Japanese EFL context: From needs to96

tasks. Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference(ProComm), Toronto, Canada, 84–89. https://doi.org/10.1109/ProComm.2018.00028
Lee, K. R., & Oxford, R. (2008). Understanding EFL learners’ strategy use and strategy awareness. AsianEFL Journal, 10(1), 7–32.
Long, M. H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching.
In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition(pp. 77–99). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Long, M. H. (2015). Task-based syllabus design. In M. H. Long (Ed.), Second language acquisition andtask-based language teaching (pp. 205–247). Oxford, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
Long, M. H., & Norris, J. M. (2000). Task-based teaching and assessment. In M. Byram (Ed.), Encyclopediaof Language Teaching (pp. 597–603). London, England: Routledge.
Markee, N. (1996). Managing curricular innovation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). (2015). Heisei 26 nendo eigo
gakuryooku chosa kekka (koko 3-nennsei) no sokuho [Results of (third year of high school)
English proficiency survey in the year Heisei 26]. Retrieved fromhttp://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/kokusai/gaikokugo/1358258.htm
Otoshi, J., & Heffernan, N. (2008). Factors predicting effective oral presentations in EFL classrooms.
Asian EFL Journal, 10(1), 65–78.
Park, M. (2015). A needs analysis for a Korean middle school EFL general English curriculum. In M.
Thomas & H. Reinders (Eds.), Contemporary task-based language teaching in Asia (pp. 261–278).
London, England: Bloomsbury.
Van Avermaet, P., & Gysen, S. (2006). From needs to tasks: Language learning needs in a task-based
approach. In K. Van den Branden (Ed.), Task-based language education: From theory to practice(pp. 17–46). Cambridge, Englan: Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667282.003
Willis, J., & Willis, D. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

97Appendix A
Target Tasks and Their Perceived Importance
38 target tasks and their scores of perceived importance by 31 computer science professors (6 =extremely important; 1 = not important at all)
Skill

Task

Score

L

Listen to and understand (teacher's) classroom English and oral instructions

5.31

R

Read and understand e-mail from professors

5.22

W

Write paragraphs and summarize ideas with logic, structure, and acceptable
grammar

5.11

R

Understand the structure of a paragraph, i.e., what the main idea and its supporting
details are

5.06

S

Interact orally with professors and students

5.00

R

Read and understand technical texts

4.86

W

Write short email messages in English with acceptable grammar and construction forboth academic and non-academic purposes

4.81

R

Read and understand research papers of their own field

4.78

R

Read and understand research abstracts of their own field

4.78

W

Develop ability to formulate arguments (and/or opinions) in writing

4.72

W

Write paragraphs and short essays by summarizing ideas with logic, structure, andacceptable grammar.

4.69

L

Listen to and complete class activities (target tasks)

4.67

W

Use a spell checker properly

4.67

S

Handle the question and answer session of his or her presentation reasonably well

4.67

S

Express opinions orally about topics familiar to them

4.64

W

Write directions, instructions, or explanation with logic and explain a procedure

4.61

R

Read and understand online instructions and postings

4.56

L

Listen to and understand an academic presentation and subsequent questions

4.53

W

Develop strategies to write a graduation thesis with focus on organization, layout,
formatting, text-graphics coordination, and judgement of content.

4.53

W

Develop skills to design a technical presentation

4.53

R

Narrow down internet search results

4.47

98

S

Talk about familiar people/things, including themselves, to those they meet for the
first time

4.36

L

Listen to and understand informal face-to-face English communication such as group
discussions at the global lounge or small group conversation with international
students

4.33

L

Make proper inferences about conversations

4.33

S

Verbally summarize what they read/heard

4.31

L

Listen to and understand multimedia instructional materials presented in class

4.28

S

Prepare and make a presentation without notes (no reading from slides or memos)

4.28

W

Find synonyms using a thesaurus, a dictionary, and online resources

4.22

S

Describe/explain objects as well as their experience orally

4.22

L

Listen to and understand occupational English (or in the context of business)

4.19

S

Use communication strategies such as paraphrasing and asking for clarification

4.17

L

Listen to and understand various English accents by native and non-native English
speakers, e.g., Russian English accent, Japanese English accent, etc.

4.08

S

Talk about their own expertise to people who are unfamiliar with such expertise

4.06

S

Engage in debates/discussion interactively

4.03

R

Read and understand news reports and magazines

3.97

W

Create a poster for an academic presentation

3.92

W

Take detailed notes based on class lectures and group discussion

3.78

L

Understand English in multimedia outside classes (e.g., audio & video on theinternet)

3.67

Note. R=reading; L=listening; W=writing; S=speaking

99

Appendix B
Task-Types of the Core Courses
Introductory English 1&2 (Q1 and Q2 in Y1)
Read or listen to and understand (teacher's) classroom English and oral instructions live or
onlineRead and understand (simple) academic text
Understand the structure of a paragraph, i.e., what the main idea and its supporting details
are
Read and write short email messages in English with acceptable grammar and construction
for both academic and non-academic purposes
Use a spell checker properly
Write a sentence with acceptable grammar
Introductory English 3&4 (Q3 and Q4 in Y1)
Read and understand (simple) academic text
Understand the structure of a paragraph, i.e., what the main idea and its supporting details
areWrite a sentence with acceptable grammar
Make proper inferences about conversations
Listen to and understand informal face-to-face English communication such as group
discussions (e.g. in-class group activities, Global Lounge)
Talk about familiar people/things, including themselves, to those they meet for the first time
Express opinions orally about topics familiar to themUse communication strategies such as paraphrasing and asking for clarification/interrupting
others politely
Describe/explain objects as well as their experience orally
Write directions, instructions, or explanations with logic and explain a procedure
Intermediate English 1&2 (Q1 and Q2 in Y2)
Read and understand (simple) academic text
Verbally summarize what they read/heard
Formulate arguments (and/or opinions) based on audio/text input in preparation for writing
Write paragraphs and short essays by summarizing ideas with logic, structure, and acceptable
grammar100

Listen to and understand an academic presentation
Write a graduation thesis with focus on organization, layout, formatting, text-graphics
coordination, and judgement of content
Intermediate English 3 (Q3 in Y2)
Verbally summarize what they read/heard
Listen to and understand an academic presentation
Write a graduation thesis with focus on organization, layout, formatting, text-graphics
coordination, and judgement of content
Prepare and make a presentation without notes (no reading from slides or memos)
Find synonyms using a thesaurus, a dictionary, and online resources
Design a technical presentation
Create a poster for an academic presentation
Thesis Writing and Presentation (S2 in Y4)
Write a graduation thesis with focus on organization, layout, formatting, text-graphics
coordination, and judgement of content

101Chapter 9
Task-Based Language Teaching at the Maritime Education
and Training Institute in Indonesia
Irmi Agustina(Queen’s University Belfast)
Abstract
This study is aimed principally at evaluating Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) as one of the optimal
approaches that can be applied in English for Specific Purposes (ESP) classes, specifically in maritime
education and training (MET). The MET domain was chosen to develop this study, as it uses one of the
branches of ESP called Maritime English (ME). The ability to communicate in English and, specifically, tounderstand Maritime English is important for effective working at sea and in ports. The importance ofEnglish language for ships’ crews is that they understand instructions on navigational devices andmachinery, signs on board in English, meteorological information, messages concerning the vessel’ssafety and operation, and also that they can communicate with other crew members on board. Poor
Maritime English competence is one of the factors causing accidents and incidents at sea. In this paper, I
argue that TBLT, in respect of learner needs, may be a potential solution to this problem.
Keywords: English competence; English for Specific Purposes; Maritime Education and Training;
Maritime English; Task-Based Language Teaching
The number of schools which offer English for Specific Purposes (ESP) classes has regularly
increased since the subject was first introduced in 1960, and the ESP phenomenon cannot be halted inschools and universities in Indonesia (Poedjieastuti, 2017). ESP-based schools are increasingly attracting
attention, particularly in Indonesia, as they offer students specialist expertise. The number of vocational
schools has recently increased; according to data collected by Baswedan (2014), there were 25,580
vocational schools in Indonesia, and this could have increased in recent years, even though the
popularity of Senior High Schools is even higher. The rise of ESP schools has turned English teachers who
basically teach General English (GE) into ESP teachers, but this issue presents English teachers with amajor problem: They do not have any background knowledge in the specific discipline, but still have todeal with specific terminology. For example, a ME teacher should grasp learning topics related toemergency situations on board, ships’ machinery, parts of the ship, crew members’ jobs, incidents atsea, maps and charts, etc. Ali (2016) pointed out that the quality of ESP teachers in Indonesia wasinadequate because they had no background knowledge that referred to particular subjects. For
example, English teachers who used to teach General English lack knowledge related to navigation andships’ machinery. One way to overcome the problem is by collaborative teaching; Benesch (1999),
argues that ESP teachers can collaborate with subject teachers, either together in the classroom or
outside when planning learning materials. For example, in my experience in ME class, before I teach amaritime-related topic such as “navigational orders”, the subject teacher and I will discuss and planteaching to explain the topic. In addition, learners have their own concerns on facing ME; for instance,
they lack vocabulary, and need to meet a level of English communication competence to be able to workon board. It is hoped that this study will help ESP teachers, not only in MET, but also in other fields of
ESP, such as medical, accounting, and hotel management, to better prepare their students for their
future careers through a task-based approach.
102

Maritime Education and Training and English for Specific Purposes
The Maritime Education and Training Institute is a school mainly focused on preparing learners
to be seafarers. In Indonesia, most MET institutions are boarding schools which have adopted semimilitary procedures to run the system; for example, learners engage in physical activities outside theclassroom.
International Maritime Organization (IMO) created a handbook for Maritime English, thishandbook helps the Maritime English teachers in teaching-learning preparation. It consists of syllabus,
learning source, and teaching methods. The Maritime English syllabus refers to the Standard Training
and Certification and Watch-Keeping (STCW) 1978 amendment, which requires MET learners to have
English competence before working on a ship or at a port. The amendment has had a significant effecton ME learning in creating course design, curriculum, materials development, assessment used, andMaritime English teacher training (Trankner & Cole, 2012). The International Maritime Organization(2015) explains the aim of the Maritime English Model Course:
The purpose of the IMO model course is to assist maritime training institutes and their teaching
staff in organising and introducing new training courses or in enhancing, updating or
supplementing existing training material where the quality and effectiveness of the training
courses may thereby be improved. It is not the intention of the model course programme topresent instructors with a rigid “teaching package” which they are expected to “follow blindly”.
Nor is it the intention to substitute audiovisual or “programmed” material for the instructor’spresence. As in all training endeavours, the knowledge, skills and dedication of the instructors
are the key components in the transfer of knowledge and skills to those being trained throughIMO model course material. (p. 1)
The IMO Model Course for ME is divided into two core sections. The first is General Maritime
English (GME), and consists of three areas of language (grammar, vocabulary, and phonology) withpractice of four language communication skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing), GME isdesigned for learners who have an elementary, lower intermediate and intermediate level of English.
The second core section is Specialised Maritime English (SME). The SME syllabus is more maritimespecific; otherwise the language features are not the main target (International Maritime Organization,2015).
Hutchinson and Waters (1987) and Dudley-Evans (2001) stated that ESP courses were designed
to meet the specific needs of learners. Dudley-Evans (2001) defined the needs of learners in ESP as
based on an occupational situation where English plays a key role. Johns and Dudley-Evans (1991) statedthat ESP has “absolute” characteristics: It is designed around content to meet the specific needs of thelearner, with themes and topics related to particular disciplines, occupations and activities. It is also
centred on the language appropriate to those activities (syntax, lexis, discourse and semantics). For
example, an English course for engineers will use engineering situations to present relevant languageand discourse. Dudley-Evans emphasized that “ESP is concerned with teaching language, discourse, andrelevant communication skills” (p. 132). In ME, learners would be encouraged to focus more on
deepening their on-board communications such as covering technical failure situations, safety
communications, navigational or meteorological information, piracy attacks, etc.
Competent seafarers are very important for the Indonesian economy because of the country’s
position on a world trade route. Wahyono, Tangkilisan, and Marihandono (2016) stated that the“Indonesian region lies between the Paciﬁc Ocean and the Indian Ocean. It puts Indonesian sea in an
important position in the world political arena. Geo-economic position of Indonesia is very strategic,
103because it is located in the heart of world trade” (p. 29). English is one of the most important subjects in
the MET academy, and learners are prepared not only to work locally, but also in international shipping
companies. Furthermore, a good Maritime English class will increase learners’ English skills. John,
Brooks, Wand and Schriever (2013) and Mockel, Brenker and Strohschneider (2014) emphasised that
communication problems have been found to cause most marine accidents.
Teaching ME in the Maritime Education and Training Institute is very challenging for several
reasons. The cases below may also happen in other vocational schools which apply semi-military
practices in Indonesia in particular, and in other English as a Foreign Language (EFL) countries moregenerally:
1. School regulations and activities
The MET Institute is a boarding school which adopts semi-military discipline. Under thisregime, students face many activities, academic and physical. Semi-military discipline isapplied at the Institute to form a sense of responsibility and independence, training
students to adapt to their future, real workplace (ship or port). The physical activities affectthe teaching-learning process, particularly for students, as quite often they appear
exhausted in class. Generally, classes run from 7:00 am to 3.00 pm, including one break andlunch. Before class, students have to carry out physical exercises (jogging, sit-ups, push-ups),
eat breakfast and take part in a flag ceremony. After class, students are expected to get
involved in several extracurricular activities (sports, arts, marching band, drill, etc). At night,
students usually have time for individual learning.
2. Textbook
It is quite rare to find an official textbook for the MET class. Tevdovska (2018) stated that it
is almost impossible to find a textbook that meets students’ needs and corresponds to theirlevel of proficiency. Grant (1987) researched three types of teacher who need textbooks;
one of the samples said that they do not use textbooks, but prepare all teaching materials
themselves. Grant (1987) responded the sample in the context of teaching ESP, stating that“in this type of situation, the purposes for learning English are very specialised, the group oflearners is small, their needs are specialised that no suitable books are available” (p. 7).
However, IMO Model Course 3.17 gives book references for teaching-learning, such as a
textbook entitled Marlins Study pack 1 and 2 published by Marlins, a company which
provides training and assessment to the maritime industry, and which claims to be theleading provider of Maritime English testing to seafarers worldwide.
3. Terminology
The teacher has to become familiar with the terminology related to the field of learning; inthe author’s personal experience, English teachers do not have a maritime background andwere unaware before conducting ME classes that they would have to engage with Maritime
terminology. Therefore, the ME teacher needs time to learn maritime terminology.
Task Based Language Teaching as a Possible Solution
According to Richards and Rodgers (2010), “Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) refers to theusing of tasks as core units of planning and instruction in language teaching” (p. 174). The main reason
why I am trying to combine TBLT and ESP is because I see TBLT complementing MET-ESP in that both
approaches lead the learners towards real-life situations. Consider the three challenges above; TBLT
might be addressed as an appropriate approach to the MET class for several reasons under each point.
104

In this section, I will first argue how TBLT might be an appropriate teaching approach in this particular
context of MET-ESP from the perspective of task design, syllabus design, and teacher roles. I will thendiscuss how TBLT might solve specific challenges faced by the MET-ESP teachers in Indonesia.
Why TBLT?
TBLT offers a variety of advantages when applied to ESP. Teachers drawing on TBLT reportincreased confidence, enjoyment and motivation among learners (East, 2017). These three elements areimportant in encouraging students’ motivation in learning English, and, as Hutchinson and Waters(1987) note: “The growth of ESP, then, was brought by a combination of three important factors: theexpansion of demand for English to suit particular needs, development in the fields of linguistic andeducational psychology” (p. 8). Below, I will outline the benefits especially in the context of MET-ESP interms of (a) task design, (b) syllabus design, and (c) teachers roles. I will also give some advice on how
the MET-ESP teachers may be able to take full advantage of TBLT in their ESP classes.
Task design. Van den Branden (2006) defined a task as “an activity in which a person engages inorder to attain an objective, and in which necessitates the use of language” (p. 4). Nunan (1989) divided
tasks into two categories, real-world and pedagogical. Real-world tasks are closely related to authentic
situations outside the classroom, or in real-life situations. A pedagogical task may lack situational
authenticity but aims at interactional authenticity; in other words, the kind of natural language found inuse for communication in the world outside the classroom. Ellis (2003) considered that:
A task is intended to result in language use that bears a resemblance, direct or indirect, to theway language is used in the real-world. Like other language activities, a task can engage
productive or receptive and oral or written skills. (p. 16)
To specify the meaning, Ellis (2009) divided tasks into unfocused and focused tasks. Unfocused tasks
focus more on using language in general communication, while focused tasks provide opportunities
designed for learners to communicate using certain pre-specified grammatical structures.
Skehan (1998b) identified four criteria of tasks: “Meaning is primary, there is a goal that needs
to be worked towards, the activity is outcome-evaluated, and there is a real-world relationship” (p. 226).
Long and Crooks (1993) are in line with Skehan with the last factors. They emphasised that in designingtasks, the teacher should take into account the relevance to the learners of real-world needs. Calvert
and Sheen (2014), on the other hand, defined a good task as one that covers three factors. They are“enjoyable, useful and meaningful, which in turn influences teaching effectiveness” (p. 230).
Tsui (2001) argued that tasks invite learners’ participation in types of activity involving pairwork, group work, and the whole class. She also emphasised that pair work and group
work provide more classroom interaction in producing speech acts than does teacher-fronted
interaction. Van den Branden (2006) pointed out that in a TBLT program, students are presented withreal-life situations. Bygate (2015) argued that “real-world tasks are intended to provide ‘situational
authenticity’, in the sense that the tasks are genuine exemplars of what the learners can be expected tohave to do outside the classroom” (p. 381).
The definitions of tasks expressed by the TBLT researchers above are in line with the purpose of
ME classes which emphasise the need for tasks with more focus on real-world activities, where themeaning is the first concern in executing the task. From their perspectives, this focus on real-world
activities is the key to training future seafarers to be able to perform necessary duties in English. For
example, Kielbratowska (2009), giving suggestions towards authentic situation tasks related to reading105

skill activity, suggested giving learners a reading text related to a recent accident they have alreadyheard about.
Task-based syllabus. A syllabus can be analogised as a branch of a tree with a curriculum as its
stem in teaching and learning. Breen (2001) defined syllabus as a planning device in the process ofteaching and learning, related to what should be achieved during the process. He concluded there are
four elements in syllabus: aims, content, methodology and evaluation. A syllabus is formally
documented either as a national or institutional framework for a specific group of learners, or as in thecontent of published textbook. According to Richards and Rodgers (2015) “the syllabus of TBLT is
typically more specific on language structures, functions, topics, themes, and macro-skills (listening,speaking, reading and writing); the pattern of the syllabus gives the teacher a framework for designingmeaningful tasks” (p. 184). Krashen (1985) summarised the task-based syllabus as focusing on meaning,from this perspective, the aim of task-based syllabus design is to create suitable tasks to encourageinteraction and, through it, negotiation for meaning. The learner would interpret and express themeaning while carrying out an appropriate task, thus enhancing his or her linguistic knowledge and its
social use.
A task-based syllabus tends to emphasise real-life communication, although a Maritime English
syllabus also puts emphasis on grammatical structures, as they are frequently targeted in Maritime
English exams. For example, included in the International Shipping Federation (ISF) Marlins English
Testing for Seafarers—one of the online Maritime English testing sites (Marlins, n.d.)—30 out of a total
85 Maritime English questions concern on grammar instead of other English skills. Maritime English(2015) stated that linguistic content consists of three areas of language (grammar, vocabulary, andphonology), along with the practice of communication skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing).
However, it might seem ambiguous why Maritime English emphasizes communicativecompetence on the other hand and grammar on the other. Fotos and Ellis (1991) contended thatwhether grammar has to be explicitly taught in a TBLT lesson is a controversial issue. However, Nunan(2003) stated that presenting “the grammar in a context that makes clear relationship between thegrammatical form and the communicative function” (p. 159) is the key. Grammar in Maritime English is
crucial in radio communications, nautical publications, meteorological information, and messages
concerning the vessel’s safety and operation; and it is required to communicate with other vessels, VTS
stations, and multinational crews, as well as to use the Standard Marine Communication Phrases (SMCP)
successfully and efficiently. Therefore, the role of grammatical competence in the Maritime context (andothers ESP contexts) is to convey meaning well within communication.
By using the task-based syllabus, Maritime English teachers can choose grammatical rules thatare appropriate to the learners’ needs and are suitable for their future jobs in the Maritime context.
Teachers can first set up a task where the use of grammar rules to be taught is needed. For example, if
ME teachers were to teach about the past tense, they could introduce a story about a past voyage(taken from a book, a newspaper article, the internet, or other sources) and discuss what might have
happened. If needed, teachers then can explain the grammar rules explicitly. This teaching approachshould help students do well on the Maritime English exam for seafarers, and also produce wellstructured sentences in their maritime communications and avoid misunderstanding.
Role of the teacher in the TBLT approach. Van den Branden (2016) and Hutchinson and Waters(1987) stated that TBLT is regarded as student-centred, as it focuses on students’ classroom activities incarrying out tasks. Similarly, Swan (2005) considered the teacher as a manager and facilitator incommunicative activities in TBLT classes. In contrast, in the pre-task section, the teacher should be agood model in presenting examples of task performances, and then the main task will be completed by
the students. Prabhu (1987) stated that:106

In the classroom, the teacher controlled the complexity of his or her language in more or lessthe same way as an adult does in speaking to a child – avoiding or paraphrasing what he or she
felt might be too difﬁcult, repeating statements, and speaking slowly when there seemed to bedifficulties of understanding. (p. 57)
Van den Branden (2006) divided the role of the teacher in TBLT into three points: first, theteacher as a motivator – the teacher motivates learners to invest mental energy in performing tasks andkeeps up the motivation through various phases of the tasks; second, the teacher organises the task
activity, giving instructions, preparing learners to perform the task, guiding them into groups (for groupwork), and making sure that they all have the materials they need, or understand how they can obtainthem; thirdly, the teacher interacts to support the learners as they carry out the task.
Sharma (2014, p. 233) considered that success in a language class depends on the role played by
the teacher, who not only designs and implements tasks, but also mediates these tasks with learners,
making them aware of learning outcomes and learning potential. Maritime English is a major subject in
MET because of its function in navigating a ship, communicating on the ship, and socialising with ship
workers from different parts of the world. Therefore, the role of the Maritime English teacher isessential in creating reliable seafarers who have not only good maritime skills, but also excellent
communication ability in English.
The author suggests to Maritime English teachers that they be more creative in developing
tasks; for example, the teacher can take learners to practise speaking on a bridge simulator for an
experience that resemble real-life, on-board communication.
In addition, it is better for the teacher to focus on learners with low motivation to enhance theirunderstanding and motivation related to the importance of the English language in the maritime sector;
these learners might not be able to compete with other friends in the class. The teacher is expected tobe slower in giving instructions about a task, since not all learners have the same capability to absorb
the materials.
TBLT as a Solution to MET Challenges in Indonesia
The first point of the challenge concerns on school regulations and activities. As noted above,
there is strict regulation and many activities outside the classroom make learners feel exhausted andlow in motivation towards learning. In my experience, the main purpose of applying TBLT in theclassroom is to keep the students actively engaged with the learning topic during the learning process.
Ellis (2003) stated that:
Task involve real-world process of language use, the work plan may require learners to engage
in a language activity such as that found in the real world, for example, completing a form, or it
may involve them in language activity that is artificial, for example, determining whether two
pictures are the same or different. However, the process of language use that result fromperforming a task, for example, asking and answering questions or dealing withmisunderstandings, will reflect those that occur in real-world skills. (p. 10)
In addition, I use tasks as a way to avoid long explanations of the learning topic, for example: using a
topic related to the past tense, the teacher can use a reading text about a past voyage to explain
meaning, function, when the past tense can be used, etc. Several tasks directly give learners
understanding related to that task’s function in their work; for instance, in a maritime context, tasks
107train learners to be able to make a voyage report, and the writing skills can help learners tocommunicate with the shipping company by email. Another good point in applying a task-based
approach—and an important part of learning—is its effectiveness in motivating learners. Richards andRodgers (2014) stated:
Task activity and achievement are motivational. Tasks are also used to improved learnermotivation and therefore promote learning. This is because they require the learners to use
authentic language, they have well-defined dimension and closure, they are varied in format
and operation, they typically include physical activity, they involve partnership andcollaboration, they may call on the learners’ past experience, and encourage a variety ofcommunication styles. (p. 182)
Van Gorp and Bogart (2006) also stressed the importance of motivation in task-based classes:
Task will work best to the extent that they inspire the learner to work i.e. to invest mental
energy in task performance and to persist, even if the tasks is complex or difficult. The learnerhas to keep task performance going. The motivation to perform a task should therefore
preferably be learner intrinsic, rather than the kind of “surrogate motivation” provided bygimmicks, grades and superficial devices. (p. 82)
On the one hand, some students are enthusiastic about Maritime English lessons, even thoughsome of them sometimes look tired during the learning process. On the other hand, the rest of thestudents seem to have no interest in Maritime English, assuming that the English language is not apriority for those working in a shipping company. They see most graduates working in local shipping
companies, where the English language is rarely used. In such cases, the teacher should encourage thelearners when explaining the purpose of the tasks to change their attitude towards learning English.
The second challenge faced by MET schools is textbooks. There is almost no official textbook for
Maritime English. Some researchers have positive attitudes about textbooks, but others are against
them. Hutchinson and Torres (1994) are positive, stating that the textbook is a very important part inteaching and learning English, providing important input into lessons through activities, reading andexplanation. Otherwise, textbooks are seen as a teaching aid that makes the teacher less responsible in
the teaching-learning process. Swan (1992) warned:
The danger with ready-made textbooks is that they can seem to absolve teachers of
responsibility. Instead of participating in the day-to-day decisions that have to be made about
what to teach and how to teach it, it is easy to just sit back and operate the system, secure in
the belief that the wise and virtuous people who produced the textbook knew what was goodfor us, unfortunately this is rarely the case. (p. 33)
However, beyond the pros and cons of the textbook’s existence, the MET Institute uses IMO
Model Course 3.17, and this helps the teacher by giving suggestions about which kind of book can beused to develop learning materials as set out in the three points above. To correspond to this problem,
TBLT helps the teacher to present meaningful tasks instead of reaching the target syllabus from atextbook. This takes us back to the purpose of TBLT as an approach to language education that
introduces the learners to functional tasks, with focus on meaning and use of language in the real world,
not just for linguistic purposes (Van den Branden, 2006).
108

TBLT itself challenges teachers to be more creative in delivering language knowledge throughvarious task designs. Teachers can develop learning materials through the TBLT approach byincorporating speaking, listening, reading and writing into fun and meaningful activities – for example,
designing a game activity as a task. Perifanou (2009) proposed that games are highly influential inlanguage learning; learners can become involved in various games such as storytelling, fantasy, music,
movement, role-plays, language games and problem solving. Research by Alqahtani (2015) related tothe attitudes of engineering students in an ESP class found that all 16 students interviewed stated thatlearning English could be facilitated by using movies, books and newspapers. In terms of the maritime
context, the teacher can include fun activities by using video to see effective communication on board,
types of ships, machinery compartments on a ship, and on-board emergencies. The teacher can ask
learners to retell a story after watching an activity, or can pose questions to be answered randomly by
the learners. Other fun activities that can be practised in the Maritime English class are role-play, group
discussions and presentations.
The third challenge in MET schools is terminology. It is noted above that most ME teachers
started out as General English teachers. The problem faced in MET mostly involves maritime terms.
Terminology isolates the teacher during the teaching process, such as in naming parts of the ship andship’s machinery. In addition, English is a foreign language in Indonesia; Ellis (1994) stated that “English
as a foreign language takes place in settings where the language plays no major role in the community
and is primarily learnt only in the classroom” (p. 12). Therefore, Most of Indonesian learners facedifficulties in learning English because it is not spoken in daily communication and is rarely used outside
the classroom. Thus, maritime terminology is also new to them because it is not common or in use by
the general population. ESP learners, in this case at the MET Institute, also find difficulties in learning
new terminology or vocabulary specifically in the maritime sector, because the vocabulary is not usedfrequently. As Xhaferi (2015) stated: “It is difficult to learn words especially ESP words because they are
low frequency words and are not encountered very often” (p. 232).
To overcome the terminology problem, TBLT represents a strategy for both teachers andlearners to broaden and enrich their maritime terms through tasks which focus on meaning. Sarani and
Sahebi (2012) stated that teaching methods based on tasks can help learners to pay more attention andconcentrate on meaning. In the ME context, the teacher might create tasks using “matching words”,
matching synonyms between General English and Maritime English words, or matching maritime
terminology to its definition or to a picture in order to help learners to absorb maritime terminology.
Another way to solve the terminology issue is through reading tasks, as it is widely believed that readingis the major source of vocabulary growth in L1 (first language). Students with strong reading skills whoread a variety of texts may make substantial gains in their vocabulary, without direct instruction(Xhaferi, 2015, p. 233).
Conclusion
The TBLT approach offers meaningful materials for the MET teachers and students to work withbecause its functional task reflects real-life situations, which encourages learners “to focus primarily onmeaning exchange and to use language for real-world, non-linguistic purposes” (Van den Branden, 2014,
p. 174). Functional tasks give MET learners practice in facing real-life situations on board, which in turnwill help them acquire knowledge and skills required in their real-life as seafarers. Thus, the use of TBLT
in MET classes will help learners be better prepared for their future careers.

109

Acknowledgment
The author wishes to express her gratitude to Lembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan (LPDP), theIndonesia Endowment Fund for Education, for their funding which allowed her to attend the TBLT in Asia
2018 Conference, where she presented the earlier version of this paper.
References
Ali, S.U. (2016). ESP Teacher education model in Indonesian context. Edukasi, Jurnal Pendidikan, 13(2),344–354.
Ali Alqahtani, M. (2015). Teaching English for specific purposes: Attitudes among Saudi engineering
students. English Language Teaching, 8, 76–94.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing usefullanguage tests. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Baswedan, A.R. (2014, December 1). The emergency of Indonesian Education [Gawat darurat pendidikan
di Indonesia]. Paper delivered at the meeting between Ministry and Head of Education Offices
Indonesia-wide in Jakarta, Indonesia.
Benesch, S. (1999). Rights analysis: Studying power relations in an academic setting. English for SpecificPurposes, 18, 313–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(98)00011-8
Breen, M. P. (2001) Syllabus design. In D. Nunan & R. Carter (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching
English to speakers of other languages (pp. 151–159). Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667206.023
Bygate, M. (2015). Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from theinternational conference. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.8
Calvert, M., & Sheen, Y. (2014). Task-based language learning and teaching: An action-researchstudy. Language Teaching Research, 19, 226–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814547037
East, M. (2017). Research into practice: The task-based approach to instructed second language
acquisition. Language Teaching, 50, 412–424. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144481700009X
Edwards, C., & Willis, J. R. (2005). Teachers exploring tasks in English language teaching. Basingstoke,
England: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230522961
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (1997). The empirical evaluation of language teaching materials. ELT Journal, 51, 36–42.
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/51.1.36
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journalof Applied Linguistics, 19, 221–246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00231.x
Feez, S. (1998). Text-based syllabus design. Sydney, Australia: National Centre for English Teaching andResearch.
Fotos, S., & Ellis, R. (1991). Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 25,
605–628. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587079
Grant, N. (1987). Making the most of your textbook. London, England: Longman.
Hutchinson, T., & Torres, E. (1994). The textbook as an agent of change. ELT Journal, 48, 315–328.
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/48.4.315
Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1987). English for specific purposes. Cambridge, Englnand: Cambridge
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511733031
John, P., Brooks, B., & Schriever, U. (2017). Profiling maritime communication by non-native speakers: A
quantitative comparison between the baseline and standard marine communicationphraseology. English for Specific Purposes, 47, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2017.03.002
110

John, P., Brooks, B., Wand, C., & Schriever, U. (2013). Information density in bridge team communicationand miscommunication – A quantitative approach to evaluate maritime communication. WMUJournal of Maritime Affairs, 12, 229 –244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-013-0043-8
Johns, A., Dudley-Evans, T. (1991). English for specific purposes: International in scope, specific in
purpose. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 297–314. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587465
Kielbratowska, J. (2009). Authentic material in teaching maritime English: An accident at sea.
International Maritime English Conference (IMEC 21) Proceedings, 275–278.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Long, M., & Crookes, G. (1993). Units of analysis in course design – The case for task. In G. Crookes & S.
Gass (Eds.), Tasks in a pedagogical context: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9–54). Clevedon,
England: Multilingual Matters.
International Maritime Organization (2015). Maritime English: Model course 3.17. London, England:International Maritime Organization.
Marlins (n.d.). Online English language testing. Retrieved from https://marlins.co.uk/maritime-english/
Mockel, S., Brenker, M., & Strohschneider, S. (2014). Enhancing safety through generic competencies.
TransNav: The International Journal on Maritime Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation,
8(1), 97–102. https://doi.org/10.12716/1001.08.01.11
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Nunan, D. (2003). Grammar. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Practical English language teaching (pp. 153–172). New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Perifanou, M. A. (2009). Language micro-gaming: Fun and informal microblogging activities for language
learning. Communications in Computer and Information Science, 49, 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04757-2_1
Poedjiastutie, D. (2017). The pedagogical challenges of English for specific purposes (ESP) teaching at the
University of Muhammadiyah Malang, Indonesia. Educational Research and Reviews, 12(6),338–349.
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2016). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Sarani, A., & Sahebi, L. F. (2012). The impact of task-based approach on vocabulary learning in ESP
courses. English Language Teaching, 5, 118–128. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n10p118
Sharma, B. (2014). Interactional concerns in implementing group tasks: Addressing silence, dominance,and off-task talk in an academic writing class. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 9,233–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2014.914522
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. (1998b) Task-based instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 268–286.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190500003585
Swan, M. (1992). The textbook: Bridge or wall? Applied Linguistics and Language Teaching, 2(1), 32–35.
Swan, M. (2005). Legislation by hypothesis: The case of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 26,
376-401. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami013
Tevdovska, E. S. (2018). Authentic materials vs textboosk in ESP (English for Specific Purposes). Journalof Languages for Specific Purposes, 5(1), 57–66.
Tsui, A. B. (2001). Classroom interaction. In D. Nunan & R. Carter (Eds.), The Cambridge guide toteaching English to speakers of other languages (pp. 120–125). Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667206.018
111

Van den Branden, K. (2006). Introduction: Task-based language teaching in a nutshell. In K. Van den
Branden (Ed.), Task-based language education: From theory to practice (pp. 1–16). Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667282.002
Van den Branden, K. (2016). The role of teachers in task-based language education. Annual Review ofApplied Linguistics, 36, 164–181. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190515000070
Van Gorp, K., & Bogaert, N. (2006). Developing language tasks for primary and secondary education. In
K. Van den Branden (Ed.), Task-based language education: From theory to practice (pp. 76–105).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667282.005
Wahyono, E., Tangkilisan, Y. B., & Marihandono, D. (2016). Development of inter-island shipping as abridge in Indonesian archipelago. Online International Interdisciplinary Research Journal, 6, 47–
61.
Xhaferi, B. (2015). Teaching and learning ESP vocabulary. Revista de Lenguas para Fines Específicos, 16,
229–255.

112

Chapter 10
Critical Perspective on Language Learning: TBLT and Digital Games
Anton Vegel(Kent State University)
Abstract
This research review addresses a number of questions regarding language learning, current trends insecond language acquisition (SLA) research, how they are related to digital games, and the manyreasons why digital games hold promise for language learning. Also, it will be seen why and how past
movements to incorporate digital games in language teaching methodology (such as computer assisted
language learning—CALL) have been relatively unsuccessful. Furthermore, the fundamental principles
behind how good digital games are designed and the main empirical benefits of digital game-basedlearning will be shown to correlate with idea in TBLT. Hopefully by accomplishing these goals a clearerview of what digital games can offer and what research is still necessary will be illuminated.
Keywords: Computer Assisted Language Learning; Digital Game-Based Learning; language learning;
Second Language Acquisition; Task-Based Language Teaching
In the field of Education, Gee (2007b) analyzed how learning happens in commercial video
games by focusing on different groups of learning principles such as semiotic domains, learning andidentity, situated meaning, telling and doing, cultural models, and social mind. Gee ultimately organized
36 learning principles that he had found in most “good” commercial games, games that have been
designed for the entertainment market. Gee’s first-hand approach to researching video games has also
been utilized by a number of other researchers (Chen & Yang, 2012; deHaan, Reed, & Kuwada, 2010).
This has led to a number of research studies related to commercial games, that are designed forentertainment, not specifically for learning purposes, in the field of digital game-based learning (DGBL)(Reinders, 2012). It should be noted that these commercial games contrast with programs designed
specifically as language learning tools such as those designed as computer assisted language learning(CALL). Gee primarily questions why good learning can happen in commercial video games but so often
does not happen in classrooms, where activities and methodologies are designed to specifically enhancelearning.
Similar to Gee’s (2007b) principles, Prensky (2001) observed that most games involve “rules;
goals and objectives; outcome and feedback; conflict, competition, challenge and opposition;interaction; [and] the representation of a story” (p. 2). Similarly, Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT)
as a current trend has utilized these features by attempting to clearly distinguish tasks (active/situatedlearning) and activities (simply a learning exercise) in language teaching methodology. Few would
consider a digital game simply an activity (often described as “play” or “digital experience”), while many
would consider language learning book-work simply an activity. Skehan (1998) provided this distinctionof a task (as distinct from an activity) as follows: (a) a task is oriented towards communicative activity
and focused on pragmatic communicative meaning, (b) it is achievement-based and outcome-evaluated,and (c) it has a real world relationship link. Similarly, Nunan (2004) defined a task with six main criteria.
The most focused of these being that a task must emphasize communication through interaction, focus
on the learning process, include and enhance learners’ personal experience, and link classroom language
to real world language. These definitions of task mostly summarize a task as an active and situated113

pedagogical tool. Thus, the target of both DGBL and TBLT aims for active and situated learning, which
offers the learner agency and an environment in which to use context-specific language to accomplish agoal.
Gee’s Learning Principles in Light of SLA Theories
What digital games have succeeded with over the years has been the ability to situate the player
in a learning environment (Gee, 2004, 2007a, 2007b). Gee’s main critique throughout his work seems toboil down to two main points: (a) why commercial games utilize more effective learning principles thanschools, and (b) how these principles can be used to begin solving big problems in education. Gee’s firstpoint will be the main focus of this paper.
From here two points will be presented in more detail: (a) what principles Gee (2007b) has
found in commercial games that are most relevant to SLA research, and (b) how these principles relate
to past or current methodological trends such as CALL and TBLT. Ten most relevant principles of Gee’s
36 learning principles have been selected in an attempt to show compatibility with relevant SLA
research. The ten principles (Gee, 2007b) with brief summaries are as follows:
1. Psychosocial Moratorium Principle: Spaces are available in which risks can be taken andconsequences are lowered.
2. Practice Principle: Lots of active practice is provided to students in context and on their own
terms.
3. Incremental Principle: Learning is set in stages and builds towards more complexity.
4. Explicit Information On-Demand and Just-in-Time Principle: When and only when thelearner needs and can use explicit information is it provided during practice.
5. Concentrated Sample Principle: Important elements of a task are concentrated in earlystages so learners can efficiently practice and learn them.
6. Bottom-up Basic Skills Principle: Basic skills need to be learned in context and from thebottom-up.
7. Identity Principle: Learners have real choices and have ample chances to reflect on their old
identities and their new projected ones.
8. Committed Learning Principle: Learners are given plenty of time to engage in the learning
environment they feel commitment to.
9. Active, Critical Learning Principle: The learning environment is not designed for passive
learning but instead for active and critical engagement.
10. Probing Principle: Learners engage in a cycle of learning in which they form a hypothesis,
test their hypothesis, and reflect on their understanding and knowledge.
Further description of the principles will be introduced with their relevance to SLA research as they arebrought up throughout the paper.
SLA and DGBL
What Gee (2004, 2007b) is able to identify as far as game design and how it engages gamers inlearning environments shares many of the same pedagogical implications as SLA research such as therole of skill acquisition theory (DeKeyser, 2007), input processing (VanPatten, 2012), statistical learning(Rebuschat, 2013), identity and agency (Duff, 2012), and interactionist approach (Mackey, Abbuhl, Gass,
2012) and noticing and awareness in language learning (Hamrick, 2013; Williams, 2005; Schmidt, 1990).
In this section, these SLA theories will be explored in relation with Gee’s learning principles and DGBL
more generally.
114

Skill acquisition. Skill acquisition theory attempts to explain how skills are learned from initial toadvanced proficiency (DeKeyser, 2007). Within this theory, automatization (skill acquisition) requires
procedural knowledge that often begins with the acquisition of declarative knowledge. This thenrequires “slow and deliberate practice” from the bottom-up (p. 100, 107, 108). This practice often does
not incorporate any or all practice, but rather requires the learner to practice a small sample and infer
how/why a rule (such as auxiliary fronting) applies in many cases (i.e. with a normal verb adding do, witha be-verb when using present continuous or passive, with modals, etc.). Additionally, this practice must
be presented incrementally. However, DeKeyser (2007) claims “no amount of any activity means much if
it does not fit into the right point of development of skill for a given individual” (p. 108) posing adifficulty for teachers to design activities that are at the right level for all learners in a diverse classroom.
Alternatively, games offer the player similar means yet perhaps to better ends. Games offer asafe, low risk environment in which to practice required actions that represent a small sample of what
will be required later in the game. This is an example of the “psychosocial moratorium” principle, inwhich learners can take risks and consequences are lowered. Games also utilize the practice principle, inwhich learners get extensive practice in a context that is relevant to themselves and in which theyexperience frequent success (Gee, 2007b). This practice is also far more particular in games thanclassroom activities thus nearly always avoiding practice that does not fit in the learning process.
Additionally, games’ requirements are often briefly presented explicitly and are eventuallyautomatized (through acquired procedural knowledge) which is often a prerequisite for continuing or
finishing the game (due to the designed learning curve). In this way, the incremental principle (Gee,2007b) ensures that:
Learning situations are ordered in the early stages so that earlier cases lead to generalizations
that are fruitful for later cases. When learners face more complex cases later, the learning space(the number and type of guesses the learner can make) is constrained by the sorts of fruitfulpatterns or generalizations the learner has found earlier. (p. 210)
In other words, if a game demands the player to perform a new action that requires a set of learned
actions, the game must be designed in a way that progressively builds on previously learned skills for thegamer to successfully create a skill set (Gee, 2007b). In this way, many safe and low-risk stages aredesigned to allow the gamer to consolidate their skills and self-assess how to apply their acquired skills
for each new challenge. Games offer well-ordered problems (levels) and encourage risk taking,exploration, and even failure (Gee, 2007a).
Input processing. Consciousness and input processing address a number of questions related to
input and intake in language learning. One of these questions is whether input and intake is consciouslyor unconsciously controlled when making form and meaning connections (Schmidt, 1990, p. 138;
VanPatten, 2012, p. 269). Some hints can be found in the “noticing” and the “enhancement of input”
principles in SLA which both suggest that the simple enhancement of input as a pedagogical strategy canbe beneficial for comprehension and recall of previous form/meaning knowledge (Han, Park, & Combs,
2008). Schmidt’s noticing hypothesis in particular emphasizes that L2 learners are able to notice andacquire language forms in the input, but only when it is provided at the right timing when learners aredevelopmentally ready. Utilizing these strategies can help learners automatically notice forms implicitly
or notice and recall declarative knowledge explicitly to aid in the completion of a task. When tasks aredesigned in a way that monopolizes on this strategic input, incidental learning is possible and beneficial.
Video Games often exclusively provide contextual input related to the task at hand avoiding theinefficiency of processing too much information and cutting the risk of cognitive overload. In this way,games follow the explicit information on-demand and just-in-time principle. This learning principle
demands that information is provided explicitly in a way that is accessible to the learners, as they need it
115

or at a point where it can be best understood and utilized for practice (Gee, 2007b). Thus, this principle
deals with providing input at the right time within a task in a way that is most beneficial. If done
correctly (as it is in “good” games) intake does not result in a distraction while trying to solve a task andrather serves as an enhancement of the input that helps solve the task.
Statistical learning and cognitive domains. Statistical learning suggests that statisticalinformation can be acquired implicitly and explicitly (such as syntactic structures i.e. grammatical rules
like subject-verb agreement and lexical pairs i.e. collocations) (Hamrick & Rebuschat, 2014). The
cognitive mechanism involved is also not specific to just language learning but to domains in generalsuch as visual or auditory stimuli, “i.e. the learning mechanism applies to statistical information in theenvironment” (Rebuschat, 2013, p. 613). For example, auditory and visual cues can both result instatistical learning yet both require a large amount of input. Hamrick and Rebuschat (2014) specificallyfound that the impact input has on learners’ development and ability to mirror the input is dependent
on the interaction of frequency and the learning conditions.
As mentioned games often encourage practice and exploration before mastery. This exploration
allows learners to collect statistical information from the environment. The reverse which is often
practiced in schools is unlikely to occur in a game environment: competence before performance. A
gamer would be left outside of the game context with only a small sample of explicit information about
the game and yet be expected to develop procedural skills required to perform well in the game. This
would be practically impossible and would likely result in a quickly demotivating way of playing andlearning. Thus games utilize the concentrated sample principle and the bottom-up basic skills principle.
The concentrated sample principle maintains that learners should not only get lots of practice in earlystages but that there should be more instances of key symbols, signs, and actions that will be required
later. This increases the chances of incidental learning and successful automatization of the games
requirements. The bottom-up basic skills principle further suggests that basic skills are not learned out ofcontext or isolated from the task at hand and that by engaging in the task the learner gains skills thatcan be applied to similar domains (similar tasks and similar genres). Additionally, the virtualenvironments of games provide far more control in ways that can help mediate not only the frequency
of input but also the learning conditions that are necessary to make robust statistical learning
successful.
Identity and agency. Learners often choose specific learning approaches and take-up identities
related to their social groups (Duff, 2012). Identity in social groupings and a sense of agency within agroup provides learners with knowledge of discursive practices that may otherwise seem inaccessible
although necessary to complete real world tasks (Gee, 2004). This knowledge is essential for learners togain both skills and confidence to engage in English for specific purposes, especially. Ultimately, Duffclaims that a lack of agency can lead to a passive and disengaged learner ultimately undermining thelearning process and underscoring its importance (p. 417). Alternatively, when learners have a strong
sense of agency (one that empowers them to engage in social groups, participate in communities ofpractice, and follow discursive practices) they not only develop skills but they additionally do so largely
autonomously (outside the classroom and on their own volition).
A gamer not only takes on the identity of a character but also commits to interacting in thegame’s environment which holds its own set of values and principles that must be understood andutilized. Thus, games utilize the identity principle in which “learning involves taking on and playing withidentities in such a way that the learner has real choices [in developing the virtual identity]” (Gee,2007b, p. 208).
Furthermore, many games allow players to produce aspects of the game whether it bemodifying character features and abilities that can drastically change the style of play (providing
116

flexibility through customization such as the pace or intensity) or even specific skill focus of play(modifying the approach a player must take). These multiple approaches attend to the committed
learning principle in which players “participate in extended engagement (lots of effort and practice) as
extensions of their real world identities in relation to a virtual identity to which they feel somecommitment and a virtual world they feel compelling.” (Gee, 2007b, p. 208) and the active, criticallearning principle in which “All aspects of the learning environment (including ways in which thesemiotic domain is designed and presented) are set up to encourage active and critical, not passive,
learning.” (p. 208). Beyond this, even modifying the game itself is an added feature within many games.
These modifications are produced by creating new environments that are open to engagement or bycreating completely new games generating critical learning opportunities even outside of the original
game.
Compared to our industrial style of education (one that does not always align knowledge andskills with practical application) games are far more flexible at not only affording players a sense ofagency but also affording options for difficulty adjustment leading to more individualized learning bydesign. Research on learning styles is often criticized for legitimizing student limitations and incentivizing
only practicing what is comfortable for students ultimately reducing learners’ flexibility and adaptability
to different learning styles (Curry & Snyder, 1990; Reynolds, 1997); however, this is not the case formany gamers. Gamers often deliberately seek out difficult tasks and challenging games. In fact, it isoften a criterion for review referred to as replay value (how often the game can be replayed with newchallenges and new features). If players want to or need to test a new style of play (which requires
understanding and mastering a new set of principles within the game), they can do it easily withinstantaneous feedback about their performance. Even a workshop style class would struggle to matchsuch a level of particular learner attention that a game is able to offer a player (notably often not at thefault of the teacher at all but rather the inherent institutional limitations).
Interaction. Interactionist approach most generally suggests that interaction benefits language
acquisition (Mackey, Abbduhl, & Gass, 2012; Loewen, 2013). Although the kind of feedback that is mostbeneficial to L2 learning and the impact of individual differences is still under investigation, the benefitsof interaction seems to be quite clear (García-Mayo, 2013); especially feedback received during
interaction has been shown to facilitate the L2 learning process and L2 development (Mackey, 1999,
2006). Furthermore, recent interaction research has focused on the cognitive, individual, and social
factors involved in interaction such as aptitude, motivation, setting, and interlocutor (Decke-Cornill,
2007; Dornyei & Tseng, 2009; Trofimovich, 2011).
Games are situated and active, so the interaction that takes place within them is contextually
relevant. If understood successfully, feedback players receive from other players (i.e., intake of the
feedback received) can be used to modify their own approach in the game and then cross checked withthe feedback from the game (is the gamer performing better or worse based on the interlocutor’s
feedback). This loop allows gamers to use active communication in a situated environment to explore
and engage in inquiry about problems while trying to solve them. This follows the probing principle inthat “Learning is a cycle of probing the world (doing something); reflecting in and on this action and, on
this basis, forming a hypothesis; reprobing the world to test this hypothesis, and then accepting or
rethinking the hypothesis.” (Gee, 2007b, p. 208).
Specifically, in DGBL Reinhardt and Sykes (2012) studied interaction in games and found that
Massive multiplayer online games (MMOG) such as World of Warcraft (WoW) offered non-native English
speaker players opportunities to interact with English speakers on a daily basis (p. 35). MMOG games
specifically offer more interaction because “their designs afford player-player interaction and their117

content includes more narrative and language use than other game genres.” (p. 36). This interaction was
thus shown to be highly contextual and instantly useful for the player/learner.
Pedagogical Potential
Thus far, it has been shown that principles found in games are concurrent with theories oflanguage learning in SLA. As I will argue in more depth in this section, however, technology-centric
methodologies such as CALL have been insufficient in providing the learning realities that games offer.
TBLT, on the other hand, is a focused methodology that aims to provide active and situated learning
providing more theoretical cohesion with DGBL. Although DGBL is not a silver bullet as not all aspects ofgame-based learning yield gains over traditional learning styles, the most positive empirical findings
seem to converge towards the same aims of TBLT.
CALL and DGBL
If parallels in a synthesis of SLA and Gee’s learning principles clearly exist, why has CALL, an areaof research that is argued to be closely related to SLA (Chapelle, 2009), not been more successful ininitiating substantive change to our classroom realities? CALL has been used as an umbrella term for theuse of technology in language teaching and research, and especially early CALL studies were primarily
concerned with the use of technology per se rather than considering CALL as a new approach to L2teaching (Chapelle, 1990; Gitsaki, 2013). Some practical and pedagogical questions that had been asked
at the onset of CALL (Chappelle, 1990) are still being asked today such as those regarding how CALL
materials differ from those traditionally used in the classroom (Chappelle, 2010), what exact pedagogicalgoals of using particular hardware and software are (Stockwell, 2007), and where robust empiricalevidence of the benefits of using the technology has been found (Handely, 2017). Although CALL has
greatly evolved and shows immense potential to language learning from its initially traditionalclassroom-based style (e.g., Schwienhorst, 2002), there are still many unanswered questions particularly
those regarding pedagogy, such as the technological features most effective for language learning; theeffects of technology on linguistic complexity, accuracy, and fluency; task designs that help focus
learners’ attention to linguistic forms in otherwise communicative tasks; the strategies used by learners
while using technology; the points of improvement for language assessment; the beneficial effects ontechnology-mediated feedback; the effects of web-based tools and social networking on motivation; andthe beneficial effects of the emerging use of mobile technology (Gitsaki, 2013). These are all very
particular questions, but they are necessary to substantiate the pedagogical potential and provide
conviction to the practical use of technology in the classroom. Additionally, Stockwell’s (2007) analysis
of CALL research from 2001-2005 showed little evidence that the technology used in classes was used inparallel with substantive pedagogical change. Not only was a gap found between the hardware andsoftware technology that appeared in CALL research and those used in practice but further much of thetechnology used in practice did not show clear evidence of substantial pedagogical change.
While the main accomplishments of CALL appear to be the application of technology to existing
pedagogy, this paper argues that DGBL is in fact distinct. DGBL explores the inherent learning principles
utilized in the design of commercial games, and it is concerned with pedagogy as a whole rather thanthe mere use of technology in the classroom. Thus, DGBL lends more potential to the investigation of
how digital environments can contribute to effective pedagogy and further how language learning
methodologies can take up game-enhanced, game-based, synthetic immersive environments, and“teaching as designing” (p. xiii)—ultimately arguing for a postmethods approach in that instructors
design and adapt the learning systems that guarantee learner success—as part of the digital education
revolution (Reinders, 2012). However, it should be noted that DGBL clearly does not solve the questions
118

of CALL nor does it replace or erase the primary work done in CALL particularly that of surveying
attitudes and perceptions of learners and comparing technology-based approaches of language learning
to non-technology based approaches (Levy & Stockwell, 2006).
TBLT and DGBL
Although TBLT can be implemented without the help of technology, it shows methodologicalsymmetry to learning principles found in games. However, only specific points of DGBL seem to holdpractical value to language learning notably controllability, learner autonomy, and genres that promote“arenas” and “task-relevant” spaces.
Empirical findings on DGBL. TBLT functions as a learner-centered and negotiation focusedmethodology in which students must work together to solve problems (Swales, 2009). Interaction is ameans to reach these ends, and particularly in this way language learning with the utilization oftechnology offers a lot of potential to TBLT. Digital games offer a medium in which learners can be
exposed to novel language situations, cooperate towards shared goals, and use context-specificlanguage (all in a structured environment).
However, some elements of DGBL seem to be more useful to deploy pedagogically than others.
Notably, performance (playing games) taps cognitive resources potentially resulting in weaker linguistic
gains suggesting some caveats to taking a performative role in games. Research has shown that when ingame tasks are particularly demanding, the players’ cognitive resources are more limited than observersof the game (Amoia, Bretaudiere, Denis, Gardent, Perez-Beltrachini, 2012; Chen and Yang, 2012). This isalso reiterated in deHaan, Reed, and Kuwada (2010) which finds that players were able to recall
significantly less vocabulary than the observers of particularly demanding gameplay (p. 84).
On the other hand, elements of controllability and learner autonomy have been noted as
beneficial. deHaan (2005) suggested that games with a high factor of controllability allowed for stronger
gains especially when paired with repetition, contextualized language input, and both aural and textual
language presented simultaneously (p. 281). Furthermore, Thomas (2012) found that particular gamegenres such as “puzzle adventure games, simulation games, virtual pet social sims, web-based strategy
games, MMORPG and alternate reality games (ARG)” serve as tools and “arenas” for language to besituated and “task-relevant” (p. 21).
It is quite clear that although some of these findings suggest that games may deprive learning(i.e. the cognitive demands), other factors such as controllability, learner autonomy, and genres that
promote “arenas” and “task-relevant” spaces suggest potential benefits. Clearly, DGBL is not a silver
bullet, but there does seem to be theoretical and empirical support for the use of games and gamedesign in language education.
Implications for TBLT. Games (by design) have the ability to offer controllability, learnerautonomy, and arenas of task-relevant spaces. TBLT similarly aims to offer these affordances. Nunan’s(2004) and Skehan’s (1998) similar definitions of task criteria not only follow well in line with theempirical benefits of DGBL discussed above, but further synthesize well with the learning principles Gee(2007b) found implemented in good games.
These definitions of task first include an emphasis on communication through interaction. Froma sociocultural perspective, participants in a task always “co-construct” the task they are engaged in(Ellis, 2009, p. 121). By engaging in tasks together learners negotiate form and function/meaning
relationships that help students accomplish “locally determined goals” and compare these language
goals to their own knowledge and skills (p. 115, 121). TBLT is thus compatible with learner controllability
and autonomy.
119

Following these pedagogical goals, the practice principle and the psychosocial moratorium
principle show theoretical convergence with Nunan’s (2004) and Skehan’s (1998) interaction criterion.
Completing a task, learners must engage in authentic practice that reflects the real world. This
completion is further co-constructed and thus offers a realistic sense of how interlocutors outside theclassroom may handle the task (or a similar task). This criterion thus offers practice that is an imagined
version of a real world task and that is completed at their own pace (practice principle). Furthermore,this classroom-based practice relies on negotiation between learners with an authentic and meaning
based goal. The classroom setting allows real world consequences to be lowered. Learners thus have theability to take risks and “play” with the language in a way they might be reluctant to or unable to do in areal world situation (psychosocial moratorium principle).
Definitions of a task further specify that tasks focus on the learning process, include andenhance learners’ personal experience, and link language used in the classroom with the real world. Oneof the most unique features of a task is that it is outcome-evaluated (Ellis, 2009). This is not evaluation ina sense similar to an activity (i.e. focusing on accuracy as to whether something is correct or incorrect)
but instead in terms of the completion of a communicative goal (a meaning focus). This allows learners
to focus on the learning process (e.g., What speech acts are needed to order food? What grammaticalforms are needed to describe job experience?), not just the completion of an activity. This learning
process thus demands attendance to the procedure of achieving a communicative goal. The procedure islearner generated and co-constructed offering “multiple routes” to achievement allowing learners to
use their personal experiences as a resource in the completion of a task and linking classroom languagewith real world language. (p. 121). In this way TBLT requires a highly contextualized environment inwhich students can engage and receive feedback within the process of completing a task.
Following these pedagogical goals, a number of learning principles (Gee, 2007b) show further
cohesion. As tasks allow learners to focus on the learning process, they provide an opportunity forcritical learning. This learning is not passive. It is accomplished by actively assessing the task at hand andengaging the interlocutor pragmatically (active, critical learning principle). Furthermore, learners
necessarily become aware that many stages of practice are necessary to successfully complete authentic
communicative tasks. With this understanding they are able to deconstruct how to approach othercomplex tasks by applying the same procedures (incremental principle). In turn learners thus becomeaware of the communicative needs necessary to complete a task and the benefits of being able to use
resources as a tool to prepare for and to complete a task in practice sessions (explicit information ondemand and just-in-time principle).
Additionally, as tasks allow for learner’s personal experiences outside of the classroom tocontribute as a resource in the completion of a task, they are encouraged to express their knowledge ofthe real world practically and are in turn responsible for modifying their utterances as a means to
successful ends. This not only reiterates that tasks aim for interaction and negotiation focused practice
but also that tasks further demand identity and agency from the learner (identity principle). This processof utilizing personal experience additionally demands that learners continually reflect on theirexperiences and the hypotheses they have created about the world and re-evaluate them depending on
their successful or unsuccessful application in completing a task (probing principle). This understandingof cyclical learning further demands learners understand the link between the language learning they doin the classroom and the real world. To do this, learners project their identities (ones they’ve built in thereal world) on to the imagined role they take when participating in a classroom task (committed learning
principle).
The pedagogical potential of learning principles found in games and the pedagogical goals of
TBLT thus show convergence and cohesion. Being a learner-centered, negotiation focused, and situated120

methodology, TBLT can clearly benefit by integrating the main advantageous elements of DGBL,
controllability and contextualization.
Conclusion
It has been shown that SLA and DGBL are both distinctly focused on understanding the learning
processes and that much of the research of the two domains clearly converges. For example, skill
acquisition, input processing, statistical learning and cognitive domains, identity and agency, andinteraction have all been seen to theoretically correlate well with learning principles defined in DGBL
research. The main empirical benefits of DGBL (controllability, learner autonomy, and genres that
promote “arenas” and “task-relevant” spaces) are seen to run parallel to the main pedagogical goals of
TBLT both emphasizing active and situated learning, which offers the learner agency and an
environment in which to use context-specific language to accomplish a goal. Because of the inherent
flexibility of games, TBLT can clearly yield benefits by utilizing DGBL pedagogically. Clearly much morework is still necessary to define more specifically the points of connection between DGBL and TBLT and
further how these points are supported empirically; however, it should now be transparent that strong
potential exists. Additionally, the work of finding existing games to apply for task use and (likely more
useful) the work of building games for task use will hopefully emerge soon.
References
Amoia, M., Bretaudiere, T., Denis, A., Gardent, C., & Perez-Beltrachini, L. (2012). A serious game forsecond language acquisition in a virtual environment. Journal on Systemics, Cybernetics andInformatics 10(1), 24–34. Retrieved from https://hal.inria.fr/hal-00766460/document
Byrnes, H. (2009). The role of task and task-based assessment in a content-oriented collegiate FL
curriculum. In K. Van den Branden, M. Bygate & J. M. Norris (Eds.), Task-based language
teaching: A reader (pp. 477–494). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Benjamins.
Chapelle, C. (1990). The discourse of computer-assisted language learning: Toward a context for
descriptive research. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 199–225. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586899
Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer application in second language acquisition: Foundations for teaching,testing, and research. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524681
Chapelle, C. (2009). The relationship between second language acquisition theory and computerassisted language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 741–753.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00970.x
Chen, H. H., & Yang, T. C. (2013). The impact of adventure video games on foreign language learning andthe perceptions of learners. Interactive Learning Environments, 21, 129–141.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2012.705851
Cunningham, C. R. (2002). The TOEIC Test and communicative competence: Do test score gains
correlate with increased competence? (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University ofBirmingham, England.
Curry, L. (1990). A critique of the research on learning styles. Educational Leadership, 48(2), 50–56.
Decke-Cornill, H. (2007). The issue of gender and interaction in the L2 classroom. In H. Decke-Cornill & L.
Volkmann (Eds.), Gender studies and foreign language teaching (pp. 77–90). Tübingen,Germany: Gunter Narr Verlag Tübingen.
DeHaan, J., Reed, W. M., & Kuwada, K. (2010). The effect of interactivity with a music video game on
second language vocabulary recall. Language Learning & Technology, 14(2), 74–94.
https://doi.org/10125/44215
121

DeHaan, J. W. (2005). Acquisition of Japanese as foreign language through a baseball video game.
Foreign Language Annals, 38, 278–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2005.tb02492.x
DeKeyser, R. (2007). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second
language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 97–113). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The motivational basis of language learning tasks. In K. Van den Branden, M. Bygate& J. M. Norris (Eds.), Task-based language teaching: A reader (pp. 357–378). Amsterdam,
Netherlands: Benjamins.
Duff, P. A. (2012). Identity, agency, and second language acquisition. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.),
The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 410–426). London, England:
Routledge.
Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based research and language pedagogy. In K. Van den Branden, M. Bygate, & J. M.
Norris (Eds.), Task-based language teaching: A reader (pp. 109–130). Amsterdam, Netherlands:
Benjamins.
Ellis, R. (2013). Task-based language teaching responding to the critics. University of Sydney Papers in
TESOL, 8, 1–27. Retrieved from http://faculty.edfac.usyd.edu.au/projects/usp_in_tesol/
García-Mayo, M. P. (2013). Interaction and the interaction hypothesis. In P. Robinson (Ed.), The
Routledge encyclopedia of second language acquisition (pp. 331–335). New York, NY: Routledge.
Gee, J. P. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Gee, J. P. (2007a). Good video games + good learning: Collected essays on video games, learning, andliteracy. New York, NY: Lang. https://doi.org/10.3726/978-1-4539-1162-4
Gee, J. P. (2007b). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York, NY: St.
Martin’s.
Gitsaki, C. (2013). Computer assisted language learning. In P. Robinson (Ed.), The Routledge
encyclopedia of second language acquisition (pp. 106–110). New York, NY: Routledge.
Hamrick, P. (2013). Recognition memory for novel syntactic structures. Canadian Journal of
Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 68(1), 2–7.
https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000002
Hamrick, A., & Rebuschat, P. (2014). Frequency effects, learning conditions, and the development of
implicit and explicit lexical knowledge. In J. Connor-Linton & L. W. Amoroso (Eds.), Measured
language: Quantitative studies of acquisition, assessment, and variation (pp. 125–140).
Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press.
Han, Z. H., Park, E., & Combs, C. (2008). Textual input enhancement: Issues and possibilities. Applied
Linguistics, 29, 597–618. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amn010
Handely, Z. (2018). Replication research in computer-assisted language learning: Replication of Neri etal. (2008) and Satar & Özdener (2008). Language Teaching, 51, 417–429.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444817000040
Heift, T., & Chapelle, C. A. (2012). Language learning through technology. In S. M. Gass & A.
Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 555–570). London,
England: Routledge.
Levy, M., & Stockwell, G. (2006). CALL dimensions: Options and issues in computer-assisted language
learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Loewen, S. (2013). Positive and negative evidence. In P. Robinson (Ed.), The Routledge encyclopedia of
second language acquisition. (pp. 497–498). New York, NY: Routledge.

122Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question
formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557–587.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263199004027
Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27,
405–430. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami051
Mackey, A., Abbuhl, R., & Gass, S. M. (2012). Interactionist approach. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.),
The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 7–23). London, England:
Routledge.
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667336
Peterson, M. (2012). Language learner interaction in a massively multiplayer online role-playing game.
In H. Reinders (Ed.), Digital games in language learning and teaching (pp. 70–94). Basingstoke,
England: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137005267_5
Rebuschat, P. (2013). Statistical learning. In P. Robinson (Ed.), The Routledge encyclopedia of second
language acquisition (pp. 612–615). New York, NY: Routledge.
Reinders, H. (2012). Introduction. In H. Reinders (Ed.), Digital games in language learning and teaching(pp. 1–8). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137005267_1
Reinhardt, J., & Sykes, J. M. (2012). Conceptualizing digital game-mediated L2 learning and pedagogy:
Game-enhanced and game-based research and practice. In H. Reinders (Ed.), Digital games inlanguage learning and teaching (pp. 32–49). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137005267_3
Reynolds, M. (1997). Learning styles: A critique. Management Learning, 28, 115–133.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507697282002
Robinson, P. (2009). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for
examining task influences on SLA. In K. Van den Branden, M. Bygate & J. M. Norris (Eds.), Taskbased language teaching: A reader (pp. 193–226). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Benjamins.
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11,
129–158. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129
Schwienhorst, K. (2002). Why virtual, why environments? Implementing virtual reality concepts incomputer-assisted language learning. Simulation Gaming, 33, 196–209.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878102332008
Skehan, P., Xiaoyue, B., Qian, L., & Wang, Z. (2012). The task is not enough: Processing approaches totask-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 16, 170–187.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168811428414
Stockwell, G. (2007). A review of technology choice for teaching language skills and areas in the CALL
literature. ReCALL, 19, 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344007000225
Swales, J. (2009). The concept of task. In K. Van den Branden, M. Bygate & J. M. Norris (Eds.), Taskbased language teaching: A reader (pp. 41–56). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Benjamins.
Trofimovich, P. (2011). Language experience in L2 phonological learning: Effects of psycholinguistic andsociolinguistic variables. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 49,
135–156. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2011.007
Thomas, M. (2012). Contextualizing digital game-based language learning: Transformational paradigm
shift or business as usual? In H. Reinders (Ed.), Digital games in language learning and teaching(pp. 11–31). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137005267_2
123

VanPatten, B. (2012). Input Processing. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of
second language acquisition (pp. 268–281). London, England: Routledge.
Williams, J. N. (2005). Learning without awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 269–
304. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263105050138
Willis, J. (2009). The TBLT framework: The task cycle. In K. Van den Branden, M. Bygate & J. M.
Norris (Eds.), Task-based language teaching: A reader (pp. 227–242). Amsterdam, Netherlands:
Benjamins.

124

EDITORIAL BOARD
Editor in Chief: Shoko Sasayama (Educational Testing Service)
Assistant Editor: Kurtis McDonald (Kobe College)
Reviewers:
Dennis Koyama (Nagoya University of Commerce and Business)
John Thurman (Otaru University of Commerce)
Ken Urano (Hokkai Gakuen University)
James York (Tokyo Denki University)

SIG INFORMATION
Coordinator:

Justin Harris

Treasurer:

Kym Jolley

Program Chair:

Paul Leeming

Publications Chair:

Kurtis McDonald

Membership Chair:John Thurman

Webmaster:

Aeric Wong

PR Chair:Nicholas Marx

Members at Large:

Brent Cotsworth, Mark Donnellan

For publications and conference queries, contact us at: tbltinasia@gmail.com. For everything else,contact us at: tbl@jalt.org

ISBN 978-4-901352-56-7

125