論 文

Projects in the ESL Classroom—An Example Using the Grimm Brothers’ “The Three Little Pigs”—

Zane Ritchie

要

旨

本論文では，一年生の英語コミュニケーション授業にて使用した教科書のTalk A Lot: Book Oneの第六章の追加として実施したグリム兄
弟の「三匹の子ぶた」という民話のプロジェクト例の内容について述べる。プロジェクトの主な目的は，学生のコミュニケーション能力を高め，教科書で学んだ言語構造の機能を積極的に彼らに自己学習させ，また自信を付けさせ，グループの団結を促進することであった。副目
標は，学生中心の学習に向かって移行し身についた言語やスキルを自分なりのペースで使えるように促すことであった。
キーワード：task-based learning（タスクベース学習），project-based learning（プロジ ェ ク ト ベ ー ス 学 習 ），theme-based instruction（ テ ー マ ベ ー ス 指 導 ），content-based instruction（コンテンツベース指導），folk-tales（民族）Abstract
This paper presents an example of a project for first year English
communication students based upon the Grimm Brothers’ folktale,“The Three Little Pigs”, that was used to supplement a chapter fromthe textbook, Talk A Lot: Book One. The main objectives of the
project were to increase communicative competence among students― 97 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 27and to give them motivation to use the materials and theory
presented in the textbook in ways which would promote selflearning, self-confidence and peer solidarity. An additional goal wasto encourage a move toward student-centered learning, whereby
students were given more of an opportunity to use the language andskills they had acquired, on their own terms.
Keywords: task-based learning, project-based learning, theme-based instruction, contentbased instruction, folk-tales

1. Introduction   In recent years content-based learning has been in vogue at all levels, slowly
replacing the traditional bottom-up approach to teaching, whereby students were
expected to concentrate on grammatical and sentence structures. There are, however,still certain challenges such as striking the right balance between language-basedlearning and content, while providing students with ample opportunities to interpretand employ the content. Many texts are still simply not adequate enough, or fail tosolve specific challenges of how to successfully present the material to students inways which allow them to maximize the presented learning opportunity. Texts should
be flexible enough to allow for a certain level of autonomy within the classroom,
while encouraging students to think and act for themselves.
   The paper will firstly present a short overview of the methodology of contentbased learning and task-based learning, before moving onto the example of apractical supplementary lesson plan to a text-book in which students were assigned
the Grimm Brothers’ folk tale, “The Three Little Pigs” and asked to re-create thestory. The reasons for choosing the “The Three Little Pigs” were threefold: It is a wellknown folktale, it is engaging and it incorporates the past-tense that was covered in
the text-book chapter, as well as other repetitious patterns that are perfect for lowerintermediate/false beginner learners of English.

― 98 ―

Projects in the ESL Classroom

2. Background   Brinton, Snow and Wesche (1989) define three categories of content-basedlearning. In theme-based learning, the topics or themes form the background of thecurriculum; in sheltered content learning, courses are taught in the second language
to a segregated group of learners by a content area specialist; and in adjunct language
learning students study both the language and content, concurrently, in two separate
courses. Content-based learning differs from traditional language courses in that
topics tend to be restricted to a single activity or reading or listening exercise. Stryker
and Leaver (1997) also note that content-based learning further differs fromtraditional methods of instruction in that language proficiency is achieved by shifting
the focus from learning the language itself to learning through the study of subject
matter and that it promotes total integration of both the language and content.
In their model, Brinton, Snow and Wesche (1989) place theme-based learning at thebottom end of the scale, the content being nearer to what might be taught in a
traditional language class, with sheltered learning somewhere in the middle, andadjunct at the higher end, aimed more at advanced learners. (See Figure 1)
Language
class

Theme-based

Sheltered

Adjunct

Main-stream
class

Figure 1: A Content-based Continuum reproduced from Brinton,
Snow and Wesche, 1989, p. 2   Content-based textbook courses aimed at the lower end of the English learning
spectrum have become more popular at the tertiary level in recent years, and as
Stryker and Lever state, they “encourage the student to learn a new language byplaying real pieces - actually using that language, as a real means of communication.”(1997). Furthermore, content-based teaching is especially suitable for facilitating thedevelopment of all four language skills while simultaneously focusing on thefunctional use of language in authentic settings (Stryker & Leaver, 1997). And
although there has been much discussion regarding the instruction of grammar(especially in content-based learning), when dealing with grammar within the― 99 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 27

context of understanding content, many of the original criticisms of grammaticalsyllabi are satisfied: students no longer deal with decontextualized sentences, or spend
or waste time learning isolated rules that inhibit their spoken fluency. (Master, 2000,
p 94)   The Talk A Lot series takes a weak thematic-based approach to instruction withthe theme itself composing each chapter, instead of being relegated to an add-on to
the course, solely based upon the study of grammar or other language structure.
However, although it loosely attempts to provide topics as well as the scaffolding toenable students to “play with the pieces”, it fails to adequately provide learners withenough fluency practice, and offers little or no chance at creativity or meaningfulstimulus, which meant that in the context of the course, it had to be heavily
supplemented.

3. Course Outline   The course consisted of ten classes of between 30–40 freshmen and was taught
once a week for 90 minutes per class during the second semester of 2011 at Aichi
University, Toyohashi Campus. The students were unstreamed. The text/lesson
structure was exactly the same for all the classes.
   The syllabus was introduced to students as comprising of a basic listening andspeaking content-based course examining simple everyday situations, aiming tostimulate and increase their interest in English through the study of simple everyday
topics, including discussion and group projects to supplement the main text. The
course keeps within the bounds of thematic-based instruction as defined above, yet
introduces a task-project-based component. Although content-based learning should
be a standard component of discourse-learning instruction courses, without a heavyemphasis on task-based learning (Stryker and Leaver, 2007), this course placed more orless equal emphasis on the tasks or projects to provide students with ample
opportunity to actually process, practice and improve their language fluency, as wellas to enable them freedom of creativity using the structures and techniques that werecovered in the textbook.
― 100 ―

Projects in the ESL Classroom   The aims of the course may also sound familiar to those of the school of taskbased learning advocates who define task-based learning as activities in which learners
might have to perform no instructional purposes as opportunities for language
learning. Indeed, in the purist sense of task-based learning, language is not taught,
but is learned as needed for the completion of the task (Stryker & Leaver, 1997).
However, as Ellis (2003) illustrates, it is extremely difficult to define exactly what atask is. How does it differ from an “activity” or an “exercise” or a “drill”? He defines
the critical features of a task as being a work plan for a learning activity andsomething that involves a primary focus on meaning; that is proficiency throughcommunicating; a task involves real-world use of language, can involve any of thefour language skills, engages cognitive processes, and has a clearly definedcommunicative outcome, that is non-linguistic based.
   In the context of this course then, a task is defined as an activity that has a clear
performance objective and focuses on meaningful exchange with the goal to reproduce
some of the language and ideas that the students have gained within the theme. Thus,
the attainment objectives are to develop effective speaking and listening skills throughthe study of various topical issues, based upon certain tasks. Gains in overall language
proficiency are expected, along with higher levels of conversational skill.
   The teaching methodology employed in the course relies heavily upon group
work and establishing a trusting and cooperative relationship (Moss, 1998) in order tobe successful. Furthermore, the course is also designed to stimulate learnermotivation, self-confidence, and learner centeredness in which students are given
more control over their learning and granted choice in defining the processes andcharacteristics and, as a result, hopefully the gap between teaching and learning canbe narrowed (Stoller, 2006). What one could define as term project-based-task
learning is therefore an activity based upon group work, whereby the students are
given a project or task requiring several component tasks in order to be completed
within an allotted time frame, with as much autonomy as possible.
   For much of the course, the students worked in groups, even when they were
not necessarily carrying out assigned supplementary task-projects, per se. With
― 101 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 27

students split into groups of four or five, based upon their own preferences, a groupbond developed which they would be able to carry over to the later assigned projects.
There is no doubt much debate on how to group students, but in this case, since they
were mostly native Japanese freshmen students with similar levels of aptitude andproficiency, the organizational structure of the groups did not seem to affect the
motivation of the individual members. However, special consideration might begiven to certain types of classes, such as sophomore students or above, because
students may already have certain circles of friends and placing them in groups notto their liking might thereby inhibit overall group performance. Additionally, similar
consideration might also be given to classes of mixed ethnicities, because cultural andother sensitive issues could also affect overall group solidarity, thereby reducing thepotential effectiveness of the task-project. Anecdotally, a co-teacher often runs asurvey at the end of her courses. She nearly always asks if the students prefer groups
being made randomly or if they prefer to make their own groups. A large number
respond positively to random assignment, as they say they meet new people, and are
more likely to use English, which is one of the purposes of the projects in the firstplace. (2012, Correspondence with Susan Sullivan).

4. Sample Lesson   Firstly, the term lesson here was used loosely and actually indicates several
lessons of 90 minutes each. It is comprised of three parts: Part One covered thethematic material from the textbook, Part Two introduced the project, and in Part
Three the students completed it. A Fourth and final part brought the class together
to listen to each others’ projects, as well as to provoke critical thinking skills throughquestions. (See Table 1)
Table 1: Lesson Plan
Part One

Textbook theme

Part Two

Project introduction

Part Three

Project recording

Part FourClass Listening, questions― 102 ―

Projects in the ESL Classroom   In Part One, the students begin with Chapter 6 from the textbook. This openswith typical thematic approach: Work with a partner and tell each other what you didlast weekend. Try to talk for a few minutes. In groups, after soliciting answers from thebook, which included changing the tense from present to past, based upon a series ofpictures, and a series of pronunciation drills, we did the “How was your vacation”
exercise, which involved a basic task where students had to unscramble a conversation
about vacations between two people, before practicing talking about their own
vacations in the past tense.
   The point is to get students thinking of the past-tense and to practice it. Here, if
the instructor is astute, he or she will notice a few short-comings: The textbook
necessitates supplementation due to its very nature: it is too short. It also fails toadequately provide learners with the opportunity to improve fluency, and remains a
simple collection of loosely related topics, each focusing upon a particular grammaticalpoint within the confines of the content, thereby being of rather limited value
regarding student-centered learning/autonomy. It also fails to give the students achance to increase their analytical or critical thinking skills; neither does it promotegroup or peer solidarity.
   Part Two introduces the students to the project, which hopefully addresses someof the above issues, as well as giving the students a sense of success as they complete
the given task.
   The students in their groups had to create their own version of the Grimm
Brothers’ “The Three Little Pigs”. As it shall become clear, even though the story may
seem simple, it still incorporates certain repetition and includes enough “new”
phrases to make it perfect for false beginners of English. This agrees with the model
proposed by Stoller (2006), in which students are engaged in a complex set ofmanageable yet challenging tasks. More importantly, it is vital that each member ofthe group have the opportunity to contribute in a meaningful way. In the classes,
since groups consisted of four or five members, each student takes up a role: either
narrator, one of the three pigs, the wolf or the mother (if she is required). Stoller(2006) also stresses that in project-based teaching each member should be given the― 103 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 27

opportunity to contribute meaningfully to the aims of the project and understandthe roles they are supposed to play.
   First, the instructor introduced the the story to the students beforehand, usinga PowerPoint presentation in which the content was presented to the students inpicture form. As each slide progressed, information was elicited from the students
and some of the more difficult forms were outlined on the board, while they took
notes. Figure 2 shows a few examples of the patterns that were discussed. Note that it
was still necessary to go over getting the simple-past grammatical structures correct,
yet the trick was to remind the students of the forms, without overly drilling them.
Furthermore, it was an opportunity to point out potential errors and enforce uponthem that such simple mistakes can detract from the flow of the story.
Vocabulary

Comments

Straw, sticks, bricks,
wolf, chimney, cauldron

core vocabulary

Phrases/grammar
The first little pig,
the second little pig,
the third little pig
The big bad wolf vs a
big bad wolf.

some common mistakes were:
pig number 1, a second pig, pig three, etc.

“Let me in little pig,
let me in”

meaning explained. . . and he said, “I’llhuff and I’ll puff, andI’ll blow your housedown”

common phrase“No, No, not by the hairof my chinny chin, chin”

common phrase (difference also explained forplural patterns for two or more pigs)

The wolf climbed down
the chimneyemphasis: how to use and position chimney.

And he fell into theboiling cauldron.

emphasis on falling into the cauldron

difference explained

Figure 2: Common Vocabulary, Phrases and Patterns in “The Three Little Pigs”― 104 ―

Projects in the ESL Classroom   With students now having a basic framework from which to work, they weretold to use their notes to write their stories (no downloading versions from theInternet) and then record them, with one major difference: Each group would add
their own unique ending - the purpose being to give students the opportunity toinsert their own creativity into the stories, as well to provide them with a challenge,
and to make it more interesting to write, recite, and listen for all concerned.
   The students (in their groups) came to the next class at assigned times to record
their stories onto the instructor’s iphone. The instructor was not present when therecording took place, in order to make the students feel relaxed. Instructions were ofcourse provided on how to actually record/save their data and there were no
problems. Each group had 15 minutes to record their story which was to be 5–6
minutes long (they were told this in advance). The reasoning behind this was that if
students did make a mistake in recording, they could have a second chance. In fact,
what happened was that a few groups even recorded their stories twice, informing
the instructor which one they thought was more suitable.
   Along with the instruction that they modify the ending, the only other
instructions they were given was that each member of the group had to speak. Of
course, even though the narrator’s job could be thought as being the most importantand some might say that the overall outcome of the story will depend on theperformance of the student assigned that role, it should also be stressed that it is ateam effort and that the other characters all play vital roles toward making the overall
story a success. Students should be reminded of this beforehand and each member
should feel they are contributing positively to the project.
   Here it is important to note that this task-project does take a few classes toallow students to adequately prepare, and some teachers may be uncomfortable withallocating precious class time to do this. However, to the contrary, if one desires
results, it is imperative to allow students plenty of time in and out of the class to
prepare, and studies do confirm that providing adequate time to rehearse leads tomore accuracy in grammatical output, greater fluency and complexity (Ellis, 2003).

― 105 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 27   In the final class (Part 4) the entire class listened to each group’s stories andanswered two simple questions:   1) Which story was the best? Why?
   2) Which stories ending did you like best? Why?
   Students enviably chose stories that were clear, followed instructions, and thatincorporated the correct use of the past-tense. The overall standard of the stories was
extremely high, with few noticeable tense errors, which shows that given a particular
project to do, as long as the students are given adequate time to prepare and have asystematic framework from which to prepare, that outstanding results are often
possible.

5. Evaluation   Evaluation of the task was carried out according to the rubric in Figure 3.
Category

Aims

Score
(1=low; 5=high)%Fluency andpronunciation-Speech/hesitancy of speech-comprehensibility of pronunciation

12345

20%

Content-how well the story followed the original-the changed ending

12345

40%

Grammar &vocabulary(Particularly
past-tense)-precision and accuracy

12345

40%

Figure 3: Evaluation Rubric1

1 Since this project was based upon having students try to successfully render a version of “TheThree Little Pigs”, which, in turn, was based upon successfully using the past-tense as we practiced
in the textbook, the grade was slightly weighted toward the the correct form. Also note that since
this was a group project, marks were given for the group as a whole, and not for individual
performances, although if there was one or two outstanding performances within the group, thatstudents’ grade was marked up with a ‘plus’ to reflect the extra effort.

― 106 ―

Projects in the ESL Classroom

6. Conclusion   Content-based teaching, and indeed, thematic based learning, toward the lower
end of the level spectrum need not focus too much on grammatical expressions or
pronunciation in order for students to get the most out of a particular theme. Within
the classroom it is entirely possible, provided one introduces the right framework, tohave students imitate successfully the techniques that were covered within a particular
chapter of the text and to apply and adapt them successfully in the implementation ofa task-based project. Talk A lot: Book One, through several fundamental flaws, such asa lack of scaffolding, being to short and vague, provides the ideal opportunity forteachers to successfully implement task-projects for students. However, these taskprojects need not be based strictly upon task-based learning models but rather, can bebased upon the material covered previously within the contextual framework of the
textbook, which can provide the students with the initiative to actually use andimplement the language and concepts in meaningful, interesting, and creative ways,
such as outlined in the “The Three Little Pigs” task-project.

References
Brinton, D. M., Snow, M. N., & Wesche, M. B. (1989). Content-based Second Language
Instruction. Boston: Heinle & Heinle
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Master, P. (2002). Grammar in Content-Based Instruction. In Kasper, L. F. (ed.), Content-based
college ESL instruction (pp. 93–107). Philadelphia: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Moss, D. (1998). Project-Based Learning for Adult English Language Learners. Retrieved May 19,
2009, from Center for Adult English Language Acquisition (CAELA)
Stryker, S. B. & Leaver, B. L. (eds.) (1997). Content-based Instruction in Foreign Language
Education. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press
Rivers, W. (1992). Teaching Languages in College, Illinois: National Textbook Company
Stoller, F. (2006). Establishing a Theoretical Foundation for Project-based Learning in Secondand Foreign Language Contexts in Gulbahar H. B. & Miller, P. H. (eds). Project-based
second and foreign language education: past, present and future. (p. 19–41) North Carolina:
Information Age Publishing
Willis, J. (1998). Task-based Learning: What Kind of Adventure? Retrieved December, 2012 from The
Language Teacher (JALT) Web Site: http://www.jalt-publications.org/tlt/files/98/jul/willis.html― 107 ―