Research Digest

A Job Interview Task-Based Unit:
Employing the PACE Inductive
Grammar Approach

Andrew Schneider
Georgia State University
Joseph Mecha
University of Colorado Boulder
This article demonstrates how to embed grammar instruction within a task-based language
teaching (TBLT) thematic unit designed for Japanese college English classes using the PACE
Model. PACE is a four-step approach in which students comprehend authentic texts, derive
highlighted grammar patterns inductively with teacher guidance, and use the grammar
in communicative tasks. This approach is compatible with current national standards forforeign language teaching in Japan. These standards call for developing communicative
ability through student-centered instruction using materials based on actual language use inwhich grammar plays a supporting role in communication.
本論は、日本の大学における英語教育のために、タスクに基づく言語指導法（Task-Based Language Teaching/TBLT）の課題学習ユニットにPACEモデルを用いた文法指導を組み入れる方法を提示する。４ステップからなるPACEアプローチ
を通して、学習者は真の英文テキストを理解し、教師の指導の下で、ハイライトされた文法パターンを帰納的に引き出し、それをコミュニカティブなタスクの中で実際に使用する。このアプローチは、コミュニケーションにおいて文法が補助的な役割を果たしている現実的な外国語運用に基づく教材を用いて、学習者中心の指導法
によりコミュニケーション能力の発達を図る、現在の日本における外国語教授法の基準に適合している。

Improving communicative competence, in which grammar plays a supporting role,is paramount in national standards for English education in Japan. Yet existing51

Schneider & Mecha

pedagogical practices, chiefly lecture-based explicit grammar instruction, remain
largely ineffective. Chujo, Yokota, Hasegawa, and Nishigaki (2012) documented
the English proficiency level of incoming freshmen at a private university inJapan. The students failed to answer 55% of questions on high school-levelgrammar and 27% of questions on junior high school-level grammar. This meansthat university educators are faced with the daunting task of re-teaching basic
grammar concepts to incoming students.
Traditional grammar-fronted deductive methods dominate English language
education at both the primary and secondary levels in the Japanese public school
system. Recently, the Japanese Ministry of Education (MEXT, 2011a, 2011b)
has mandated classrooms adopt instruction that is more student-centered. Yet
despite sustained policy guidance from MEXT, communicative approaches have
not replaced traditional grammar-first methods (Humphries & Burns, 2015;
Nishino, 2011; Tahira, 2012). These traditional methods isolate the form of
language, giving little to no attention to communicative function. MEXT has
sought to increase L2 input by requiring teachers to instruct solely in the target
language (MEXT, 2011b). However, this denies students and teachers the use of
L1 as a vital resource for exploring L2 grammar concepts.
Years of passive learning in junior high school and high school has been
detrimental to developing communicative competence (Hino, 1988). Oncethese learners enter university, teachers face the burden of designing grammar
instruction that addresses deficiencies in the students’ productive abilities while
maintaining communication as the core purpose for language use. We suggestthat tertiary-level English classes in Japan can benefit from an empiricallysupported pedagogical approach that embeds grammar instruction withinthemed communicative tasks. This paper presents a unit based on US job
interviews that blends form and function within a meaningful context, whileproviding students with a fresh take on grammar exploration.

Task-Based Language Teaching

Communicative language teaching (CLT) refers to a broad range of meaningbased and student-centered approaches (see Richards & Rodgers, 2001 for
52

A Job Interview Task-Based Unit, OnCUE Journal, 11(1), pages 51-67

a review). Within CLT, focus on form (Long, 2000) is a way of providing
contextualized grammar instruction, which can enhance language learning (Ellis,
2008; Lightbown & Spada, 1990). Lee and VanPatten (2003) review several
studies examining the outcomes of communicative instruction that highlights
grammar to facilitate comprehension. Across a variety of foreign languages, theyfound that this specific attention to grammar during CLT instruction was more
effective in promoting acquisition when compared to learner control groups
receiving traditional CLT instruction.
Task-based language teaching (TBLT) is one CLT approach that, incontrast to traditional structural syllabuses, utilizes communicative tasks basedon real-world situations as the core unit of instruction (Van den Branden,2012). Learners focus on meaning while actively working towards concretegoals (Nunan, 1989). Well-designed tasks create a real need for communicative
language use (Frost, 2004).
Communication and collaboration during tasks creates opportunities for
scaffolded learning between teacher and learner, or learner-to-learner. The
student-centered nature of TBLT affords a high degree of individualization,
providing opportunities for learners to notice gaps in their knowledge (Gass,
1997; Schmidt, 1990; Schmidt & Frota, 1986), negotiate meaning (Hatch,
1978), stretch their abilities through modified output (Swain, 1985), receive
individualized feedback (Ellis, 1994; Nassaji & Swain 2000), and collaboratively
construct knowledge (Swain, 2000). Within TBLT, focus on form purposefully
draws learners’ attention to linguistic features during tasks (Long & Robinson,
1998).
Butler (2016) reviews the obstacles to implementation of TBLT in East
Asia, such as teacher misconceptions, lack of training opportunities and support,
and improper implementation in ways that do not significantly differ fromtraditional approaches. One major challenge to implementing TBLT in East
Asia is finding ways to include a greater focus on teaching grammar in a meaningbased approach (Carless, 2007). In a semester-long study of student perceptionsof TBLT at a university in Korea, Kim, Jung, and Tracy-Ventura (2017) reported
on an array of evolving student perceptions about a task-based course, implying
53

Schneider & Mecha

that learners can successfully adapt to the approach. However, one common
student criticism throughout the course was that the link between the tasks andgrammar practice was not clear. The PACE model provides a means to integrate
focus on form into task-based language teaching.

PACE Model

Donato and Adair-Hauck (1994) first introduced the PACE model, an inductivemodel for teaching grammar in the classroom. This model takes advantage of
key principles within sociocultural theory (Lantolf, Thorne, & Poehner, 2015),
which proposes that learning is a mediated process which requires learners to takean active part in the development and restructuring of their linguistic system.
In the PACE procedure, the learners are first presented (P) with an authentic
text (visual or written) as a whole piece in its intended native-to-native context.
This allows learners to attend to meaning, accessing the appropriate schema
needed for comprehension. Next, students’ attention (A) is drawn to a specificgrammar form within the text. Since the learners have already addressed themeaning of the text, the learners’ language processing load will be lighter, freeing
them to focus on the grammar in context. Then, in a dialog with the teacher
and their classmates, the learners co-construct (C) the meaning of the grammar
form and see how it fits into a meaningful context. Students are encouraged toexternalize their thought processes to clarify potential misunderstandings about
the function of the grammar form. In the final step of the PACE sequence, thelearners will do an extension (E) activity to apply the grammar concept they havebeen examining. This could come in the form of role play, interviews, and otheractivities.
The crucial aspect of the PACE model is that an authentic oral or written
story be presented in its complete form. Donato, Adair-Hauck, and CumoJohanssen (2005) assert that “the whole is always viewed as being greater than
the sum of its parts and it is the whole that gives meaning to the parts. In termsof grammar instruction, words, phrases, or sentences are not linguistic islands
unto themselves” (p. 193). The authors advise that the selected material should
clearly demonstrate the grammar pattern to be highlighted.
54

A Job Interview Task-Based Unit, OnCUE Journal, 11(1), pages 51-67

There are numerous benefits when students take an active role in grammar
instruction, engaging in conversations about the how and why of grammar
patterns in authentic situations (Table 1).
The PACE model has been used in studies evaluating inductive and deductive
teaching methods. Haight, Herron, and Cole (2007) conducted a study involving
47 French FL university students learning through both deductive and inductive
approaches to grammar instruction. In the lessons taught using the deductive
method, students were presented with a grammar rule and then several examples
demonstrating the pattern followed by choral reading.
In the lessons using the inductive PACE model approach, the students
Table 1Comparison of the PACE Model and Traditional Explicit Approach
Traditional/Explicit Approach

PACE Model/Guided Participation Approach

1. Sequencing of tasks from simple to complex 1. Complex language use before moving toprocedural skills
2. Minimal teacher/learner interaction;teacher-directed explanation

2. Instructional interaction between teacher(“expert”) and learners (“novices”)

3. Explicit explanation of grammar

3. Richly implicit explanation (guided
participation)

4. Learner must master each step before goingto next step (competence before performance)

4. Encourages performance before competence(approximations encouraged)

5. Learners are passive and rarely participate inconstructing the explanation

5. Learners participate in the problem-solving
process and higher-order thinking skills(opportunity for learners’ actions to be mademeaningful)

6. Few questions—mainly rhetorical

6. Language and especially questions must be
suitably tuned to a level at which performancerequires assistance7. The functional significance of a grammatical 7. Lesson operationalizes functional
point often does not emerge until end of lesson significance of grammatical structure before
mechanical procedures take place(Adapted from Adair-Hauck, Donato & Cumo-Johanssen, 2005, p. 201)55

Schneider & Mecha

were first exposed to the grammar pattern in the context of authentic use, andthen asked to examine similar sentences to highlight grammar patterns such as
partitives for plural/singular and masculine/feminine nouns (e.g. le, la, les, etc.).
Next, students followed a series of guided questions related to the proposed
grammar pattern without the instructor explicitly describing the rule. The
teacher and students then constructed the grammar rule collectively.
These two teaching methods (i.e., inductive and deductive) were used inalternation and evaluated throughout the course of the semester. The data showedthat guided inductive grammar instruction utilizing the PACE model yieldedhigher gains in grammar development in intermediate and long-term post-tests
versus explicit grammar instruction. The researchers suggest that beginningforeign language students might achieve longer-term retention of grammar
structures when “the instructor and the learner construct an understanding of alinguistic structure together through a series of student-instructor interactions”(Haight et al., 2007, p. 293).
This research was replicated with intermediate learners (Vogel, Herron,
Cole, & York, 2011). The researchers administered 10 new grammaticalstructures fit to intermediate learners of French. They also added an assessmentof learner preferences between deductive and inductive approaches to learning
grammar. The results showed greater gains for the inductive approach in shortterm testing despite the fact that students reported preferring the deductive
approach. Delayed post-testing indicated long-term retention between inductive
and deductive grammar instruction was not statistically significant. In Dotson(2010), another study modeled after Haight et al. (2007), advanced Frenchlearners demonstrated greater long-term gains when using the PACE model withguided inductive questions. The learners in this study also preferred a deductive
approach.

Instructional Design and Grammar PatternThis section outlines how the PACE model can be adapted to Japanese university
EFL classes to fit the situation-specific developmental needs of its learners. The
theme of the unit is how to apply and interview for jobs requiring English-speaking
56

A Job Interview Task-Based Unit, OnCUE Journal, 11(1), pages 51-67

ability in Japan. This TBLT unit spans six 100-minute classes (Appendix). The
unit culminates in a mock interview with an English-speaking guest interviewer
in the last class.
In the authors’ experiences, students entering university struggle withsubordinating conjunctions (subordinators) in both written and spoken
discourse. Japanese rhetorical structure allows for subordinators to exist in
separate sentences, which can thus create fragmented clauses. In our thematicunit, students need to master the concept of causality in order to properly
support statements they make about their experience and character within thecontext of a job interview.
Observed student output, both spoken and written, shows evidence thatstudents understand that “because” is a subordinator but fail to recognize thatthe grammar form links a dependent with an independent clause.
Written examples:
1. I think people these days are living longer. Because medical technology ismore advanced.
2. Sushi is delicious. Because fresh, healthy, and has many variety.
Spoken examples:
Teacher: “Why are soba noodles better than ramen noodles?”Student: “Because it’s healthy.”
Teacher: “Do you like McDonalds’ hamburgers?”
Student: “Because it’s delicious.”
While the oral production of “because” in English allows for the speaker toomit restating the question in their reply, the students in these examples haveconsciously or subconsciously marked the function as transferable from their
L1 (Kellerman, 1985). This could make responses to questions during formalinterview situations seem blunt and oversimplified. The communicative value(VanPatten, 1985) of the form “because” has the characteristics of [-semantic
value, + redundancy]. Students often see the grammar pattern “because,” but it
has little semantic value in and of itself when compared to other nouns and verbs
in the text they are reading. The conjunction naze nara (なぜなら) is frequently
used in Japanese but the function differs from the L2 usage. The Japanese57

Schneider & Mecha

conjunction does not link intra-sentence dependent and independent clauses as
seen in the following example:
今日は学校を休校にすべきではないのか？なぜならインフルエンザでたくさんの生
徒は学校を休んでいる

Without specific attention being drawn to L1-L2 usage differences, theform-meaning for naze nara has been incorrectly transferred to the English
subordinator “because.”

Instructional Sequence
P. Presentation
The sequence begins with three viewings of a video created by and for U.S.
high school graduates interviewing for highly competitive internships. The
Japanese students explore the dos and don’ts of American-style interviews. The
participants in the video repeatedly use the targeted grammar form “because.”
How P functions in the whole TBLT unit can be seen in the Appendix.
A. Attention
Attention is drawn to the causality of the grammar pattern “because” within thecontext of the TBLT theme. In the first of two activities, students read model
responses to the question, “Why were you fired from work?” and determine if thereasons provided have logical cohesion when using the conjunction “because”;
one incorrect example being, “I was fired from work because I was always ontime.” A second activity highlighting “because” can be seen in the Appendix.
C. Co-construction
The co-construction phase of the PACE model prescribes an improvised
conversation. However, we suggest several questions below as a template
to initiate dialog between teacher and students about the grammar pattern“because.” Additional conversation in this phase is encouraged.
In small groups, students write down and then collectively share their
hypotheses following the teacher’s guiding questions: “What word goes in theblanks? Do the sentences start with because? What words do the sentences start
with? What is the pattern for sentences that use because?” Group collaboration
58

A Job Interview Task-Based Unit, OnCUE Journal, 11(1), pages 51-67

helps students to work out a pattern such as: (paraphrase interviewer’s question)+ (because) + (reason).
E. Extension
Next, students complete the writing activity, “Why are you a good friend?”,
responding by using the target grammar structure “because.” For homework,
students interview various teachers to ascertain their character strengths (seeAppendix for instructions). The information collected from students’ writings isrecycled into responses for use in the final day mock interview.

Discussion

The PACE model, when incorporated into a TBLT approach, offers analternative to a simple choice between traditional grammar instruction or purely
communicative approaches. It should be noted that within the PACE model,
Adair-Hauck, Donato, and Cumo-Johanssen (2005) caution that grammar
discussion in L2 is advisable, so long as the concepts and language used are levelappropriate for the learners. When L1 is used, word-for-word translations should
be avoided. The purpose of co-construction is not to test students’ grammaticalknowledge, but rather to help students explore and reflect on what they havecomprehended in the target language (Adair-Hauck, Donato, & CumoJohanssen, 2005).
The co-construction phase requires modeling and scaffolding until learners
can take increasing amounts of responsibility over these constructive dialogs.
Based on student feedback from our post-unit surveys as well as other PACE
model studies, students might need time to acclimate to this interactive approachto learning grammar. Students not accustomed to the struggle of inductive
learning need to be conditioned over time to the expectation that they will takean active part in the learning process.

Conclusion

The PACE model represents active learning in its purest form. In the coconstruction phase, students with similar grammar misunderstandings areafforded the opportunity to verbalize their hypotheses on grammar forms with59

Schneider & Mecha

their classmates. In a traditional deductive method, there is an over-reliance on
the saliency of the explanation provided by teachers and textbook makers. If suchan explanation fails to promote learner growth, the teacher is usually left witheither one-on-one tutoring after class or leaving confused students to their own
devices.
Language is not meaningful when presented in decontextualized form, as isoften the case in structural syllabi. The PACE model starts with whole texts thatare both interesting and relevant. Learners are then primed to investigate theform-function relationship of the highlighted grammar patterns. Embedding
this inductive grammar approach within a TBLT theme-based unit, such as theabove-stated job interview, affords learners more meaning-based interactions
through collaboration and negotiation. In a TBLT-PACE model, the grammar
point services the communicative goal while recycling the grammar structurefrom authentic materials.
Teachers need approaches that move beyond the dichotomy between
CLT and traditional grammar instruction to those that allow students to drive
language learning. The PACE model liberates teachers from serving as an oracleof grammatical knowledge by allowing the text to provide all the necessary clues
needed to promote language growth. By re-contextualizing instruction within
the target language itself, teachers are then free to be a co-explorer, awarenessraiser, and motivator.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Katherine Kiss and Joe Falout for their encouragement
and guidance.

References

Adair-Hauck, B., Donato, R., & Cumo-Johanssen, P. (2005). Using a storybased approach to teach grammar. In J. L. Shrum & E. W. Glisan (Eds.),
Teacher’s handbook: Contextualized language instruction (3rd ed., pp. 189213). Boston, MA: Thomson Heinle.
Butler, Y. G. (2016). Communicative and task-based language teaching in the60

A Job Interview Task-Based Unit, OnCUE Journal, 11(1), pages 51-67

Asia-Pacific region. In N. Van Deusen-Scholl & S. May (Eds.), Second andforeign language education, Encyclopedia of language and education (3rd ed.,pp. 327-338). New York, NY: Springer.
Carless, D. (2007). The suitability of task-based approaches for secondary
schools: Perspectives from Hong Kong. System, 35(4), 595-608.
Chujo, K., Yokota, K., Hasegawa, S., & Nishigaki, C. (2012). Remedial
gakushuusha no Eigo shuujukudo to Eigo bunpou jyukutatsudo chousa[Identifying the general English proficiency and distinct grammar
proficiency of remedial learners]. Journal of the College of Industrial
Technology, Nihon University, 45, 43-54.
Donato, R., & Adair-Hauck, B. (1994, November). PACE: A model to focus
on form. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Council on the
Teaching of Foreign Languages, San Antonio, TX.
Dotson, E. K. (2010). The effects of deductive and guided inductive approaches on
the learning of grammar in an advanced college French course (Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation). Emory University, Atlanta, GA.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2008). Principles of instructed second language acquisition. CAL
Digest, (December 1-6). Retrieved from Center for Applied Linguistics
website: http://www.cal.org/content/download/1553/16478/file/
PrinciplesofInstructedSecondLanguageAcquisition.pdf
Frost, R. (2004). A task-based approach. Retrieved from http://www.
teachingenglish.org.uk/article/a-task-based-approach
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Haight, C. E., Herron, C., & Cole, S. P. (2007). The effects of deductive andguided inductive instructional approaches on the learning of grammar
in the elementary foreign language college classroom. Foreign Language
Annals, 40(2), 288-310.
Hatch, R. (1978). Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. In E.
Hatch (Ed.), Second language acquisition: A book of readings (pp. 401-435).
61

Schneider & Mecha

Rowley, MA: Newbury.
Hino, N. (1988). Yakudoku: Japan’s dominant tradition in foreign language
learning. JALT Journal, 10(1), 45-55.
Humphries, S., & Burns, A. (2015). “In reality it’s almost impossible”: CLToriented curriculum change. ELT Journal, 69(3), 239-248.
Kellerman, E. (1985). If at first you do succeed…. In S. M. Gass & C. G.
Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 345-353). Rowley,
MA: Newbury House.
Kim, Y., Jung, Y., & Tracy-Ventura, N. (2017). Implementation of a localizedtask-based course in an EFL context: A study of students’ evolving
perceptions. TESOL Quarterly, 51(3), 632-660.
Lantolf, J. P., Thorne, S. L., & Poehner, M. E. (2015). Sociocultural theory
and second language development. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.),
Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 207-226). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Lee, J. F., & VanPatten, B. (2003). Making communicative language teaching
happen (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus on form and corrective feedback in
communicative language teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
12, 429-448.
Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, andpractice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom
second language acquisition (pp. 15-63). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Long, M. H. (2000). Focus on form in task-based language teaching. In R. L.
Lambert & E. Shohamy (Eds.), Language policy and pedagogy (pp. 179192). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
MEXT. (2011a). Five proposals and specific measures for developing
proficiency in English for international communication (provisionaltranslation). Retrieved from http://www.mext.go.jp/component/
english/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2012/07/09/1319707_1.pdf
MEXT. (2011b). Koutougakkou gakushu shidou yoryo gaikokugo eigoban
62

A Job Interview Task-Based Unit, OnCUE Journal, 11(1), pages 51-67

kariyaku [Course of study guidelines for foreign language in seniorhigh schools; provisional version]. Retrieved from http://www.
mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/new-cs/youryou/eiyaku/__icsFiles/
afieldfile/2011/04/11/1298353_9.pdf
Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective
feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learningof English articles. Language Awareness, 9(1), 34-51.
Nishino, T. (2011). Japanese high school teachers’ beliefs and practices
regarding Communicative Language Teaching. JALT Journal, 33(2), 131155.
Nunan, D. (1989). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approach and methods in language
teaching: A description and analysis (2nd ed.). Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning.
Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 17-46.
Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in asecond language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. Day(Ed.), Talking to learn (pp. 237-326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible
input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C.
Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley,
MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition
through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory
and second language learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Tahira, M. (2012). Behind MEXT’s new course of study guidelines. The
Language Teacher, 36(3), 3-8.
Van den Branden, K. (2012). Task-based language education. In A. Burns & J.
C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to pedagogy and practice (pp. 14063

Schneider & Mecha

148). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
VanPatten, B. (1985). The acquisition of ser and estar by adult learners of
Spanish: A preliminary investigation of transitional stages of competence.
Hispania, 68(2), 399-406.
Vogel, S., Herron, C., Cole, S. P., & York, H. (2011). Effectiveness of a guided
inductive versus a deductive approach on the learning of grammar in theintermediate-level college French classroom. Foreign Language Annals,
44(2), 353-380.

Author bios

Andrew Schneider has been teaching in Japan for over five years and is currently
pursuing a Ph.D. at Georgia State University. His research interests include task
based language teaching, study abroad, second language acquisition, and second
language pedagogy. aschneider10@gsu.edu
Joseph Mecha is a lecturer at the University of Colorado Boulder. He holds a Master’s
degree in Applied Linguistics from the University of Massachusetts Boston and has
previously taught for eight years in Japan. His interests include task-based language
teaching, ungraded journal writing, and spoken grammar. joseph.mecha@colorado.
edu
Received: September 6, 2017
Accepted: February 9, 201864

A Job Interview Task-Based Unit, OnCUE Journal, 11(1), pages 51-67

Appendix
Job Interview Unit Daily Outline & PACE Sequence
Day 1: “How to Apply for a Job”
Student background knowledge will be activated by talking about and ranking
part-time jobs. The teacher will introduce the unit. The main activity for the day’s
lesson will be working with a job application document from the U.S. Students
will focus on understanding the overall meaning, write down any questions about
vocabulary, and note things that stood out. As a homework assignment, students
will “culturally” translate a list of common English expressions whose literalmeanings differ from the pragmatic ones.
Day 2: “Interview Dos and Don’ts”
In the first step of the PACE sequence, “presentation,” students will explore thedos and don’ts of U.S. interviews through an authentic video created by-and-for
U.S. youths seeking advice on how to successfully apply for an internship at a law
firm.
In the pre-task, students view screenshots sourced from the video andpredict the interviewee’s mistakes using a list of key phrases. Students check theiranswers while viewing the first part of the video. Students watch the second partof the video and examine key words and phrases from an ideal applicant. They
review their earlier ideas about what a person should do in a U.S. job interview.
Next, students will re-watch the video while putting the interviewer’s questions
in order, and then later review jargon, vocabulary, and phrases.
Following the video activity, students will use a Venn diagram to compareand contrast customs and behaviors in United States and Japanese job interviews.
For journal homework, students will write two sentences about each habit/
custom in a Japanese interview that would be a “bad fit” for a job interview in the
U.S. by sourcing ideas from their Venn diagram.
Day 3: Preparing for an Interview “Why Are You a Good Fit forThis Job?”
Students will watch an authentic video from the U.S. that gives advice on how
to answer the top 10 commonly asked interview questions and complete a cloze
65Schneider & Mecha

activity. Following this activity, students will go through the Attention, Coconstruct, and Extension phases of the PACE sequence. Attention is drawn to
the grammar construct “because” first through logical cohesion and in a multiplechoice activity titled “I’m a good fit at 7-Eleven because…”. Students match model
sentences of interviewee responses with several character traits that are typical ofan ideal employee (e.g., honest, hard-working, polite). The students are provided
with model answers such as, I think I’m a good fit for working at 7-Eleven becauseeven if something bad happens, I always try to smile.
Next, in the Co-construct phase, the following question is written on theboard as a prompt: “Why do you think you would be a good fit at 7-Eleven?”
Then, the instructor writes three sentences on the board.
I think I’m a good fit for working at 7-Eleven _____________ I’m never late
for class.
I think I’m a good fit for working at 7-Eleven _____________ I like talking
with people.
I think I’m a good fit for working at 7-Eleven _____________ I try manytimes until I can do something.
In groups, students collaborate to fill in the blanks with “because,” thenanalyze the usage of the conjunction within the context of job interviews.
Answers are shared and discussed as a class.
Two Extension activities are given to meaningfully apply “because.” First,
students write sentences that answer the prompt “What makes you a goodfriend?” Students are required to use the grammar structure in their answers(ex. “I think I am a good friend because I listen to my friends when they have aproblem”).
For the second Extension activity, entitled “What makes me a good
student?”, students interview three teachers, asking them to provide feedback on
their character strengths. Learners are then required to use the grammar pattern“because” and use their teachers’ reasons for support to compose a short speech
about themselves.

66

A Job Interview Task-Based Unit, OnCUE Journal, 11(1), pages 51-67

Day 4: “Interview Activity”
From teacher interviews, students will develop an “elevator speech”—a shortpersuasive speech. In the latter half of the session, students will have theopportunity to perform their speeches and get feedback from classmates.
Day 5: “Performance Assessment”
Students will complete a performance assessment demonstrating their knowledgeof interviews in the U.S. through role play. Based on teacher and student
comments, students refine their answers for the summative task of the unit.
Day 6: “Interview with Guest Panel of Employers”
A panel of English-speaking Japanese judges will conduct an interview witheach student and provide feedback based on their personal experiences bothinterviewing for jobs in English and using English in the workplace. Afterwards,
students will complete a writing prompt and give feedback on the unit.

67