Feature Article

Making a Case for Decision-making
Tasks in High-level Discussion
Classes Within a Strongly Unified
Curriculum

Jamie LesleyInternational Christian University (ICU)
This paper reports on the design, delivery, and reflective evaluation of group decisionmaking tasks used in high-level discussion classes at a private university in Tokyo taught aspart of a required general English curriculum program taken by all first-year undergraduates.
The tasks were developed in response to a university policy change affecting students fromthe AY2017 intake onward that removed the ability to opt out of the course with a TOEIC
placement test score of 900 and above. This change led to concerns that existing course
content might lack sufficient challenge and value for high-level learners. Thus, modifications
were made in the hope of making the classroom experience more meaningful, while staying
in line with the program’s strongly unified curriculum, which standardizes learning aims,
course content, language targets, lesson methodology, and assessment criteria across alllevels. Consequently, collaborative, decision-making tasks were piloted in the spring 2017and 2018 semesters to help add complexity to group discussions in high-level classes. The
paper highlights strengths and weaknesses of their application based on feedback from
instructors and students, and finishes with recommendations for how decision-making tasks
might be more formally structured into a future discussion-based curriculum.

Although it is difficult to find a commonly agreed-on definition of “tasks” (Ellis,
2003), most attempts cite a defined sequence of stages leading to an identifiable
outcome (Skehan, 1996). Ellis (2003) described this sequencing as being
comprised of pre-task, during-task, and post-task phases. In the pre-task phase,the task is introduced, the outcome is established, planning time is given, and a
preparatory activity similar to the task is conducted. This allows for rehearsal and49Lesley

strategizing between the first two phases. Complexity can be altered through thedegree of language or content scaffolding. Timing in the pre-stage may also bechanged as befits students’ proficiency or needs.
In the during-task phase, students undertake the given task and attempt toachieve its identified outcome. These outcomes are typically pursued throughcollaboration, meaningful interaction, and use of specific language forms(Nunan, 2014). Variation can again be achieved by manipulating complexity,
for example, by applying time pressure, by allowing or denying access to input
material, and by introducing new or surprise elements that were not anticipatedin the preparation (Ellis, 2003). However, balance must always be struck
between language complexity and content demands (Robinson, 2011). Equally,
cognitive and communicative loads must remain manageable (Candlin, 2009).
Tasks should also be set within realistic time constraints and generate sufficientinterest so that learners are willing to undertake them (Willis, 2009).
In the post-task phase, the teacher has options. For example, they may
conduct reflection activities to encourage students to review their performanceor evaluate task completion. A formative focus on form may be used to highlightstrengths and weaknesses of language use, review errors, or raise awareness of
specific communicative targets. The post-task phase is also an opportunity torepeat the task or conduct a similar one to address issues raised by the feedback
or reflection. Improved performances can then be immediately pursued (Ellis,
2003).
With that in mind, this paper reports on the development and appraisal ofdecision-making tasks used in high-level English discussion classes at Rikkyo
University, Tokyo. This context is described before an explanation of the tasks ispresented and discussed alongside feedback from participants.

Teaching Context

Rikkyo University’s Center for English Discussion Class oversees the
English Discussion Class (EDC), a compulsory course taken by all freshman
undergraduates as part of the general curriculum (Hurling, 2012). EDC is taught
once a week in both semesters to approximately 4,500 students in more than 550
50Making a Case for Decision-making Tasks, OCJSI 1, pages 49-69

total classes. Upon matriculation, students are streamed by college into one offour levels based on TOEIC reading and listening placement test scores: Level
I (TOEIC 680-999), Level II (480-679), Level III (280-479), and Level IV(less than 280). However, all students are subject to the same strongly unified
curriculum. This strength rests in the standardization of all course content,materials, methodology, assessments, and learning aims (Brown, 1995).
EDC has two aims: to develop students’ English speaking fluency and todevelop their ability to discuss contemporary social and cultural topics, suchas the environment and ethics. To help students discuss these effectively, target
skills are practiced using a communicative approach that prioritizes student-tostudent talk time and formative feedback to improve subsequent output. Most
skills help students share, develop, and evaluate ideas in relation to set discussion
questions. Some skills are organizational and facilitate speaking turns and topic
selection, while others are used to convey attention and check understanding(Schaefer, 2018).
Regular EDC lessons include two extended group discussions that together
occupy the last 50-60 minutes of a 90-minute lesson duration (Hurling, 2012).
Discussion 1 consists of three stages. The first is preparatory, in which students
individually make selections based on input material (Appendix A) and thendiscuss these with a partner to generate content and practice target skills further.
Students then regroup for a 10-minute discussion. A post-task feedback stage
follows where aspects of performance are exemplified by the instructor based on
notes taken mid-discussion. Selected instances are used to showcase use/non-use
of target skills in reference to students’ actual utterances to make the feedback
clearer. Teacher-fronted feedback is typically mixed with self- and peer-reflection
activities to encourage groups and/or individuals to self-appraise skills use.
Discussion 2 follows the same three-stage structure as Discussion 1, and thetarget skills remain a primary focus. However, the timing of each stage is longer,
and the topic is typically more challenging (Appendix B). The discussion is also
conducted entirely without instructor intervention to better judge uptake oftarget skills based on students’ unassisted use. The instructor monitors and rates
discussions against a grading rubric. Performance is again reviewed in feedback.
51

LesleyThis process was scrutinized at the end of AY2016, when the university
removed the ability for students with TOEIC placement test scores of 900 orabove to opt out of taking EDC. This came into effect in AY2017 and coincidedwith concerns that existing course content was too simple to be meaningfulfor native/near-native English learners. The dilemma was therefore how to add
complexity and interest to their discussions whilst staying within the boundariesof the program’s unified curriculum. One suggestion was to adopt a moredeliberately task-based learning approach.
Discussions as Tasks
A standard EDC discussion fulfils much, if not all, of the aforementioned criteriaof a task. Firstly, it has clearly defined pre-, during-, and post-task phases. It is
preceded by a preparation activity that replicates the topic and focus of the groupinteraction to which it is attached. The pre-task phase allows for strategic planningand rehearsal in advance of a group exchange that contains pre-determined
questions and fixed time limits. These establish parameters on the during task
phase leading to identifiable outcomes if students remain on-topic as instructed.
When asked for a classification, Ellis categorized EDC discussion as “open,
focused, divergent opinion-gap tasks” (Lowe, Schaefer, & Turner, 2014). EDC
discussions are open in that no non-linguistic outcome needs to be achieved, andthe group interaction finishes only when the time allocation expires. They arefocused because of instructions to use specific forms. They are divergent because
opinions do not need to be in agreement for the task to be achieved. The gap
exists until those opinions are shared and target skills facilitate that sharing.
However, a simple exchange of opinions in an open, focused, divergent format is
relatively simple for the average high-level speaker, and it was this criticism thatraised the need for revisions to the course for Level I students.
Shift to Decision-making Tasks
To go beyond a mere open exchange of divergent ideas, it was decided to shift
Level I groups away from opinions shared essentially without consequence, by
requiring students to arrive at collaboratively reached decisions that must laterbe justified. This necessitated a revised approach to group discussions. Task
52

Making a Case for Decision-making Tasks, OCJSI 1, pages 49-69

and content complexity were accordingly increased through pressure to reach aconsensus within the time limit. It was also hoped that a reporting stage would
promote greater ownership over the success or failure of the discussion, while thedecision-making component might raise engagement without sacrificing skills
use. Akin to Skehan’s (1996) approach, the standard preparation > discussion> feedback stages were extended to preparation > discussion with decisions >reporting of decisions to preparation partners > feedback with formative practiceor extension tasks.
Compared to regular EDC discussions, the pre-stage of decision-making
tasks differs in the inclusion of a scenario to place students in (Appendix C).
While this change is superficial, it is an attempt to heighten interest which,as Willis (2009) noted, is important if learners are to willingly participate.
Selections from the preparation activity are still made and discussed with apartner as in the regular format, before everyone regroups for the discussion.
However, in the revised set up, there is a two-item agenda instead of a pair ofquestions. The first item builds off the input material and is designed to be dealt
with quickly, leaving the second item as the group’s main focus. To allow forelevated complexity, and to ensure repeated use of target skills, 20-25 minutes
are allocated to the discussion rather than the standard 16 minutes. Extra time
is beneficial because the number of target skills increases incrementally throughthe course, and students are expected to not only use new skills but continue
using previously taught ones. After the discussion, group members return to their
preparation partners in the post-task phase to report and justify their respective
decisions. This allows for further use of target forms and gives the teacher time
to choose what aspects of task completion, skills, and content from each group’s
discussion to address in feedback.
Design Variations
Several variations to task structure and focus can alter their complexity (Ellis,2009), and these were considered when designing decision-making tasks for the
EDC. One such variable is time. By reducing it, we add pressure and/or difficulty
to the preparation or discussion stages. By extending it, we provide scope for53Lesley

increased use of target language and greater depth for analysis that precedes thegroup’s decisions. However, there is a point at which time extensions or reductions
are counterproductive, by making tasks too hard or long-winded.
Variations can also be made to the number of items discussed and decided,or their difficulty. For example, simply asking group members to select one ormore things from a list of many is likely easier than asking them to decide what
to do with those same things. Ranking several items is more challenging than justnominating them, while making a single-item selection is easier still.
Other variations can be made to the amount of guided or unguided
support provided in planning stages. Input may offer many items or ideas, or
few to none. Alternatively, students can be asked to generate their own ideas tosupplement what is already given, or they can start from nothing and be told tothink of everything themselves. This blank slate option can be risky if students
are unfamiliar with a topic. As such, it is better suited to more commonplacesubjects (Appendix D).
Further variations regard pre-task versus online planning, which
differentiates planning in advance from planning done during the discussion
itself. When situated online, the removal of rehearsal makes matters moredifficult and therefore suits stronger students. An example of this might be
to decide what happens to something after it has been chosen, such as how to
implement a given strategy once the group has agreed to its selection.
Final variations are possible through roles like timekeeper, facilitator, andminute-taker, or by assigning students to teams with unique aims and interests.
This can add realism to discussions and may increase interest. However, thepracticality of such variations also depends on learner proficiency, motivation,and the type and number of target skills required to complete the task.
Research Questions
To determine how successful the decision-making tasks were perceived to be,
surveys were given to students and instructors to help answer the following
enquiries:
For students:
54

Making a Case for Decision-making Tasks, OCJSI 1, pages 49-69

1. How interesting was each decision-making task to complete?
2. How difficult was each decision-making task to complete?
For teachers:
1. How often did teachers use decision-making tasks?
2. What perceived impact did use of decision-making tasks have on a) use
of target language, b) student motivation, c) topic engagement, d) lesson
timing, and e) feedback?

Methods
Participants
At the beginning of AY2017 and AY2018, instructors had been encouraged
to experiment with decision-making tasks in their Level I classes, but doing so
was not obligatory. For this study’s purpose, it was therefore decided to focus
only on classes that had been exposed to decision-making tasks consistently.
Consequently, three classes from the spring semesters of two academic years wereselected totaling 21 students in AY2017 and 20 students in AY2018. The students
came from four colleges: Psychology in AY2017, Intercultural Communicationin AY2018, and Law and Business in both years. All students were first-year
undergraduates.
The teacher survey was given to all instructors that taught Level I classes: 15
in AY2017 and 20 in AY2018. All had taught EDC for a minimum of one year.
As any instructor only ever teaches two Level I classes per week, exposure to thesetypes of classes is always fairly limited. Use of decision-making tasks was also notcompulsory. Some teachers used them, while others did not. Despite this, all
Level I instructors were asked to give feedback at the end of each semester.
The purpose and format of the student surveys were explained to all classes
in week 12 of the course. Informed consent was obtained from everyone.
Thereafter, the surveys were conducted in week 13. All Level I instructors wereasked to take the teacher surveys as part of continuing quality control conducted
every semester by program managers. Consent to retain the responses for the
possibility of a formal write-up was again obtained. Anonymity was maintainedin all cases.
55

Lesley

Materials and Procedures
A 12-item survey was created to appraise the interest and difficulty of eachdecision-making task and to determine students’ general reflections on the overall
format and purpose (Appendix E). Due to minimal changes to course content
from AY2017 to AY2018, it was possible to use the same tasks with all six classes
and therefore administer the same survey to both year groups.
All six classes in this study used decision-making tasks in Lessons 2-4, 6-8,
and 10-12, for nine regular lessons in a 14-week course. The first nine items
addressed each task with a content description and two separate four-point
Likert scales, one for task interest and one for task difficulty. Three general items
10-12 were included to appraise tasks as effective for practicing discussion skills,
for the format of opinion-sharing with decision-making, and if such tasks should
be used with future Level I intakes. An open section for respondents to add
optional feedback was also part of the survey’s design.
The instructor survey was deliberately kept very simple and created using
Google Forms. It had two sections: the first to confirm frequency of use and thesecond to address task impact on other aspects of the lesson. Both sections used
an open text-box format.
The student survey was paper based and was conducted in class. Students
were given copies of each of the decision-making tasks they had used in eachlesson to remind them of their focus and purpose. Instructors completed theirsurveys online at the end of each semester.
Data and Analysis
Data from the student surveys were coded and converted into numerical values
across the Likert scales. For task interest, covered by items 1-9, responses became:a = 1, b = 2, c = 3, d = 4. Task difficulty responses became: e = 1, f = 2, g = 3, h =4. If students indicated absence from a lesson, this was coded accordingly: i = 0.
For the general reflection items 10-12, the cline running from strongly disagree(SD) to strongly agree (SA) became: SD = 1, D = 2, A = 3, SA = 4. Mean scores
were then calculated to create an easy comparison. With the four-point scales
used, the midway point of task interest, task difficulty, and general agreement on56

Making a Case for Decision-making Tasks, OCJSI 1, pages 49-69

use of tasks was 2.5. Thus, with scores above 2.5, topic interest would be moreinteresting than not, task difficulty would be more difficult than not, and generalreflections would have more agreement than not. Standard deviations were also
calculated to show the relative spread of responses in relation to each mean score.
Students’ comments in the optional feedback sections were considered
qualitatively; however, very little was gleaned from these as few students used
them, and those that did simply expressed gratitude for taking the course. As
such, those data are excluded from the following discussion. For the teacher
surveys, in section 1, responses to the frequency of use item were calculated into
simple percentages. In section 2, responses to the impact of tasks were reviewed
qualitatively with common themes and key points highlighted.

Results and Discussion
Student Feedback
Topic interest and task difficulty in relation to specific tasks are dealt with before
a general consideration of task format and overall effectiveness. Mean scores withstandard deviations from each year set are presented for a year-to-year comparisonof topic interest and task difficulty (Table 1) and then general reflections (Table
2).
Task Interest. The first research question aimed to find out how interesting
students perceived each decision-making task to be. It seems evident fromthe mean scores that all tasks across both years were deemed more interestingoverall than not. Standard deviation findings also show that the 2017 students’
responses were more closely distributed than those obtained in 2018. Some tasks
were consistently interesting in both academic years, such as those in Lessons
2-3, while others were interesting in one year, but less so in the other, as with
Lessons 4, 6, 8, and 11. However, given the small sample sizes, the impact ofmere personal taste cannot be ignored. These tasks were generally interesting tothese specific students but may not have been for other students in other classes.
Task Difficulty. The second research question tried to discover how difficult
students perceived the decision-making tasks. Overall, it seems that the tasks
were generally viewed as more difficult in 2018 than 2017, but in both years,
57

Lesley
Table 1Students’ Perceptions of Topic Interest and Task Difficulty Levels, AY2017 – AY2018
Interest

Difficulty

Lesson. Task Topic (AY2017, AY2018)

AY2017
M (SD)AY2018M (SD)AY2017
M (SD)AY2018M (SD)

2. Campaign to help hikikomori (n =21, n = 18)

2.86 (0.64) 2.89 (1.15) 1.95 (0.72) 2.00 (0.94)

3. Guide to making friends at university(n = 21, n = 20)

2.90 (0.88) 3.10 (1.04) 1.90 (0.75) 1.90 (0.83)

4. Alternatives to university (n = 19, n= 20)

2.79 (0.69) 3.35 (0.91) 2.11 (0.72) 1.70 (0.71)

6. Deciding where to live in Japan (n =19, n = 20)

2.79 (0.77) 2.85 (0.91) 2.05 (0.83) 2.55 (1.02)

7. Eco-friendly policies for Japan (n =20, n = 20)

2.70 (0.90) 2.65 (1.15) 2.33 (0.94) 2.75 (0.99)

8. University students’ independence (n= 20, n = 20)

2.60 (1.02) 2.95 (1.02) 2.29 (0.82) 2.10 (1.09)

10. Online vs in-person event planning(n =17, n = 18)

2.71 (0.89) 2.72 (1.09) 2.00 (0.84) 2.28 (0.87)

11. Future technology investment (n =15, n = 16)

2.87 (0.81) 2.56 (1.27) 2.73 (1.00) 3.06 (0.97)

12. Values to promote at university (n =20, n = 17)2.75 (1.09) 2.76 (1.06) 2.85 (1.01) 3.18 (0.98)

Notes. 1 = not very interesting / not very difficult; 4 = very interesting / very difficult.

assumed difficulty rose as the course progressed as shown in means of 1.95
(2017) and 2.00 (2018) for Lesson 2 versus 2.85 (2017) and 3.18 (2018) for
Lesson 12. However, while perceptions of difficulty increased over time, they did
not reach the point of being deemed impossible to complete. To a certain extent,
this progression was anticipated, as topics are deliberately more challenging
towards the end of the semester. The number of target discussion skills also
increases, and by Lesson 11 students have six speaker-side skills (e.g., Giving
58

Making a Case for Decision-making Tasks, OCJSI 1, pages 49-69
Table 2Students’ General Reflections on Use of Decision-making Tasks, AY2017 – AY2018
AY2017

AY2018Item (AY2017, AY2018)

M (SD)

M (SD)

10. Completing tasks in group discussions was an effective way topractice discussion skills. (n = 21, n = 20)

3.38 (0.58)

3.00 (1.05)

11. Combining opinion sharing with decision-making tasks is agood discussion format. (n = 21, n = 20)

3.19 (0.59)

2.95 (0.97)

12. Decision-making tasks should be included in future Level I
English Discussion Class courses. (n = 21, n = 20)

3.19 (0.59)

2.90 (1.14)

Note. 1 = strongly disagree; 4 = strongly agree.

Opinions) and six listener-side skills (e.g., Asking for Opinions) to contend with.
Hence, these results are not unexpected. Although, further investigation might
confirm whether that perceived difficulty was a consequence of the increased
target skills or the design and/or delivery of the tasks themselves.
General Reflections. In terms of students viewing decision-making tasks
as an effective way to practice discussion skills (Item 10), mean response rates
in both years suggest sizeable support for the new approach at 3.38 (2017) and3.00 (2018). Responses to the opinion-sharing with decision-making format(Item 11) were equally positive at 3.19 (2017) and 2.95 (2018). Lastly, thesuggestion that such tasks should be retained in future Level I courses (Item12) was also well received at 3.19 (2017) and 2.90 (2018). Such results are very
positive, despite the 2018 students being a little less enthusiastic than their2017 predecessors and their responses typically more dispersed according to thestandard deviation findings.
Differences across the two-year groups might be explained by students
coming from different colleges, which sometimes coincides with variations inmotivation for learning English. But, the fact that the data is drawn from only
41 individuals cannot be underestimated, and no wholesale conclusions canbe accurately drawn from such a small respondent pool. Ultimately, however,feedback suggests that students endorse this type of task, and as such, the EDC
59

Lesley

program would do well to explore their potential to help engage and challenge
higher-level students.
Instructor Feedback
The third research question was designed to confirm how often teachers used
decision-making tasks in their Level I classes. Results indicated that in AY2017
the majority of teachers used decision-making tasks at some point in thesemester but not consistently so. Out of 15 Level I instructors, 11 indicated thatthey sometimes used decision-making tasks, three used them rarely, and one
instructor never did. However, in semester one of AY2018, task use was less easy
to quantify accurately due to a significantly lower response rate with only nineof 20 instructors responding to the survey. From these nine, only one instructor
almost always used decision-making tasks, two sometimes did, and one did so on
a rare basis, while five did not use them at all.
The final research question intended to uncover what impact teachers
perceived decision-making tasks to have on use of target language, student
motivation, topic engagement, lesson timing, and feedback. Generally, there
were a mix of positive and negative findings that were analyzed qualitatively
based on recurring themes and common findings related to materials creation,
uncertainty in application, learner proficiency and motivation, timing, skills use,
and feedback.
Overall, teachers felt that creating a good task was not always easy and thatsome topics lent themselves better to that purpose than others. As mentioned
before, each instructor only had two Level I classes a week leading to a certain
trial-and-error approach in how to administer each task and improve it if
need be. This was further complicated by differences between the two Level I
groups because students across classes typically differ in proficiency, motivation,and interest. That said, instructors who used tasks did note perceived gains inmotivation, but this was at times accompanied by an unwelcome drop in target
skill use. Several also felt that lesson timing was negatively affected by the needto set activities up in new and unfamiliar ways. Content-based feedback also
seemed to increase owing to a need to cover the particulars of the decisions each60

Making a Case for Decision-making Tasks, OCJSI 1, pages 49-69

group had made in more detail than usual. Evidently, then, there are clear areas toimprove in the design and execution of decision-making tasks from instructors’
point of view. There is also more preparation and support required from a
program management perspective in getting more instructors to willingly andconsistently use such tasks in their Level I classes.
Looking to the future, consideration must be given to concerns raised about
decreased skills use. To this end, decision-making tasks need to be carefully
crafted to not unduly detract attention from target forms. It would therefore be
useful to confirm through statistical analysis what specific effects, if any, different
types of decision-making tasks have on students’ skill use. As a first step in thisprocess, EDC investigated students’ skills use when completing decision-making
tasks under discussion test conditions compared against their skills use underregular discussion test conditions (Lesley & West, 2019). Findings suggest thatstudents continue to use target forms, albeit with reduced skills output with therevised format. This is a shortcoming that clearly needs addressing.
Beyond this, matters related to regular lesson grading and test assessment also
warrant further investigation. If the university formally includes decision-making
tasks as part of the Level I curriculum, questions about the kinds of rubrics andtesting instruments that best capture performance need to be answered. How tojudge successful task completion in EDC is also yet to be explored. The prospectof adding a task completion criterion to the grading rubric is desirable, but it is
not a simple process to reliably create and validate its use. This is, of course, atarget for a separate study but one that could reap rewards for the program andits Level I students if pursued.

Conclusion

This paper began by describing the teaching context at Rikkyo University’s
Center for English Discussion Class, where concerns about the need for morechallenging types of discussion tasks were raised following policy changes thatmade the course compulsory for all students regardless of proficiency. To help
meet the needs of a relatively small but significantly more proficient student
intake, complexity was added to the standard group discussion format via
61

Lesley

decision-making and post-task reporting requirements. These modified tasks
were trialed over two semesters of two academic years, and overall they foundsuccess in the limited number of classes that used them consistently. However,challenges remain in making this revised approach a time-effective and attractive
option for teachers, an engaging undertaking for students in different colleges,
and an aspect of curriculum development that receives due attention and support
from program management.

References

Brereton, P., Lesley, J., Schaefer, M. Y., & Young, D. (2018). What do you think?
Interactive skills for effective discussion 1, Book 1 (8th ed.). Tokyo, Japan:
DTP Shuppan.
Brown, J. D. (1995). The elements of language curriculum: A systematic approachto program development. Boston, MA: Heinle, Cengage Learning.
Candlin, C. N. (2009). Towards task-based language learning. In K. Van den
Branden, M. Bygate, & J.M. Norris (Eds.), Task-based language teaching: A
reader (pp. 21-40). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on
the fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied
Linguistics, 30(4), 474-509. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp042
Hurling, S. (2012). Introduction to EDC. New Directions in Teaching and
Learning English Discussion, 1(1), 1.2-1.10.
Lesley, J., & West, T. (2019). Assessing the effects of increased task complexity
on high-level students’ academic discussion performance. New Directions in
Teaching and Learning English Discussion, 7, 298-319.
Lowe, R., Schaefer, M., & Turner, M. (Producers). (2014, November 5). The
TEFLology Podcast. [Audio podcast]. Retrieved from: https://teflologypodcast.com/2014/11/05/tefl-interviews-3-rod-ellis-on-task-basedteaching-and-second-language-acquisition/
Nunan, N. (2014). Task-based teaching & learning. In M. Celce-Murcia, D.
62

Making a Case for Decision-making Tasks, OCJSI 1, pages 49-69

M. Brinton., & M. A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign
language (4th ed.) (pp. 630-648). Boston, MA: Heinle, Cengage Learning.
Robinson, P. (2011). Task-based language learning: A review of issues.
Language Learning, 61(S1), 1-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.14679922.2011.00641.x
Schaefer, M. Y. (2018). Communication skills for strategic competence. New
Directions In Teaching and Learning English Discussion, 6, 273-279.
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based
instruction. Applied linguistics, 17(1), 38-62.
Willis, T. (2009). The TBL 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, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Author Bio

Jamie Lesley is an instructor at International Christian University’s English for
Liberal Arts department. He holds an MA in Applied Linguistics and TESOL. His
professional experience and research interests include English for Academic Purposes(EAP), English for Specific Purposes (ESP), language testing, and professional
development in teacher education. jslesley2001@yahoo.co.uk
Received: November 4, 2018
Accepted: April 1, 201963

Lesley

Appendix A
Example of Regular Format Discussion 1 Materials

Brereton, Lesley, Schaefer, & Young, 2018, p. 1064

Making a Case for Decision-making Tasks, OCJSI 1, pages 49-69

Appendix B
Example of Regular Format Discussion 2 Materials

Brereton, Lesley, Schaefer, & Young, 2018, p. 1165

Lesley

Appendix C
Example of Decision-making Task Materials

66Making a Case for Decision-making Tasks, OCJSI 1, pages 49-69

Appendix D
Example of Decision-making Task Materials with Less
Guidance67

Lesley

Appendix E
Student Survey

68Making a Case for Decision-making Tasks, OCJSI 1, pages 49-69

69