Working Papers
in Language Education and Research
http://eliworkingpapers.org/

A QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF SECONDARYSCHOOL TEACHERS’ VOICES ABOUT TBLT
IN JAPAN

Atsumi Yamaguchi
ISSN 2187-4972

Corresponding author:
yamaguchi-a@kanda.kuis.ac.jp
Publication date: February, 2013

To cite this article
Yamaguchi, A. (2013). A qualitative analysis of secondary schools teachers’
voices about TBLT in Japan. Working Papers in Language Education andResearch, 1 (1) 94 - 106.

Scroll down for article

Working	
  Papers	
  in	
  Language	  Education	  and	
  Research	
  Vol.	
  1	
  No.	  1	  February	  2013,	  94	
  -­‐	
  106	  	
  A QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS’
VOICES ABOUT TBLT IN JAPAN
Atsumi Yamaguchi
Kanda University of International Studies

ABSTRACTThis paper reports on Japanese secondary school teachers’ embedded challenges
and constraints in relation to form-instruction within a TBLT framework. A
content analysis of focus group interviews revealed that 1) teachers are mostconcerned about linguistic form instruction; 2) teachers lack confidence in how toaddress form-instruction; and 3) teachers strongly believe that inductive type ofform instruction is necessary for students to succeed in reading comprehension.
The research findings suggest that solid knowledge in not only TBLT but also upto-date SLA theories and practices may encourage teachers to make informed
choices about whether/in what form they would apply TBLT in their teachingcontexts.

1. INTRODUCTION

Task-based Language Teaching has drawn the interest of researchers and educators forseveral decades in East Asian teaching contexts. Despite the increasing popularity, there has
been heated debate over the appropriateness of TBLT in the region. For instance, Littlewood(2007) highlights a concern with the high variation in Task Based Language Teaching(TBLT) from “form-focused” to “meaning oriented” (p. 247). Likewise, Goto (2011) refers
to these variations as a “weak version” (e.g. task-supported teaching) and a “strong version”(e.g. task-based teaching) (p. 38). This kind of variation seems to have emerged due todiverse constraints embedded in the context of English language teaching in East Asia, suchas “conceptual constrains”; “classroom-level constraints”; and “societal-institutional level94

Working	
  Papers	
  in	
  Language	  Education	  and	
  Research	
  Vol.	
  1	
  No.	  1	  February	  2013,	  94	
  -­‐	
  106	  	
  constrains” (Goto, 2011, p. 39). Given that constrains will remain for some time, researchers(e.g. Carless, 2007) suggest TBLT in Asian countries could take adjusted forms in a way that
culturally situates in respective contexts. At the same time, Carless also reports on secondary
teachers’ general preference to PPP (Presentation, Practice, Performance) over TBLT in HongKong.

In the same vein, Sato (2010) posits the suitability of PPP in the secondary school

context in Japan while acknowledging the positive impact of TBLT on learners’ motivation ina performance stage.
As such some researchers have argued that variability in TBLT in practice is to beacknowledged to some extent, yet others suggest that key principles in TBLT should exist. In
a seminal book on TBLT, for instance, Van den Branden, Bygate, and Norris (2009) attempt
to unify key principles of TBLT and to assemble successful practices in TBLT. Whereas theirargument tends to associate with more or less strong versions of TBLT, rather than theseemingly more accepted approach, weak versions (e.g. task-supported teaching) in the East
Asian context, the researcher believes that some of the principles they advocate should beapplied in East Asian regions to some extent. Therefore, this paper aims to explore theimplications of some of these principles and their feasibility in the context of secondary
school education in Japan. To address this issue, three core principles and investigatedsecondary school teachers’ reactions to these principles were selected. Given the findings
from the literature, teachers’ negative reactions had been anticipated. However, the purposeof the original study is to explore more in depth of voices of teachers. As a part of this bigger
project, the current paper partially reports on 1) which principles drew teachers’ interests andarguments the most; 2) what kind of challenges and constrains teachers illustrated in
implementing TBLT.

95

Working	
  Papers	
  in	
  Language	  Education	  and	
  Research	
  Vol.	
  1	
  No.	  1	  February	  2013,	  94	
  -­‐	
  106	  	
  2. METHOD

In order to gain valid voices of teachers, this study was designed to enroll secondary
school teachers in a one-day workshop on TBLT to fully inform them of basic principles on
TBLT. For the convenience of teachers, the workshop was delivered twice on two respective
days. The procedure was as follows:Part 1: A one hour presentation of TBLT as it is related to syllabus design, grammar,
and assessment
Part 2: A one hour practicum where teachers would be invited to share their ideas about
TBLT and apply what they have learned in Part 1
Part 3: A one hour focus group discussion for participants to reflect on TBLT in light of
their workshop experience
Part 4: A post-workshop survey by email
Participants of the study voluntarily attended the workshop.

The advertisement of theworkshop was distributed to in-service teachers who previously participated in a teachertraining workshops and a conference on TBLT. Six secondary school teachers (two juniorhigh school teachers; two senior high school teachers; one integrated junior and high school
teacher) contacted the researcher and agreed to participate in this study. The pre-survey
revealed that all of the six participants were initially interested in learning about andconducting TBLT. The results also showed that the participants have diverse lengths ofteaching experience, ranging from four months to twenty-five years. Similarly, the level ofengagement in TBLT differed from being a “TBLT” curriculum developer, to having
regularly applied tasks in a Super English Language High School (SELHi) project, to having
heard about TBLT but never put it into practice.

96

Working	
  Papers	
  in	
  Language	  Education	  and	
  Research	
  Vol.	
  1	
  No.	  1	  February	  2013,	  94	
  -­‐	
  106	  	
  2.1. Part 1
In Part 1, my colleague presented the three guiding principles utilizing concrete
examples of TBLT implementation. The presentation was conducted in English, being the
primary language of the presenter. Three basic TBLT principles were selected to be the focus
of inquiry: 1) TBLT is a syllabus design approach; 2) Grammar instruction deductively
happens in TBLT; 3) Task-Based Language Assessment (TBLA) ought to be an element of
TBLT.
Far from serving as a complete understanding of TBLT, the sessions were meant toserve as an accessible but comprehensive starting point for participants to hold discussions on
TBLT practice in Japan. For the purpose of this paper, the researcher will only describe thecontent related to principle 2 in the following section since this principle seems to have drawn
the most interests of the teachers.
2.2. The role of grammar instruction in TBLT
TBLT embraces “experiential learning” (Dewey, 1933) that argues learning happens
through an individual learner’s experiences, and therefore in a learner specific order and pace,
whereas synthetic/ structural syllabus approaches evolved from the notion that knowledge canbe learned in a pre-described sequence and pace. Therefore, interpretations of TBLT that
attempt to blend tasks along with rigid grammar teaching approaches are problematic, in thatas long as teachers set the ultimate goal of a task as the immediate acquiring of some target
grammar element, the approach is dependent on an artificial and forcibly quickened scheduleof grammar acquisition. However, this does not mean that TBLT ignores the importance of or
the need for grammar as a factor in language instruction completely. Approaches to grammar
teaching that account for learners’ needs to progress from using simpler to more complex

97

Working	
  Papers	
  in	
  Language	  Education	  and	
  Research	
  Vol.	
  1	
  No.	  1	  February	  2013,	  94	
  -­‐	
  106	  	
  forms in a gradual, less rigidly defined manner are embraced. They also emphasize theacquisition of new forms, in the sense of an ability and willingness to use them, as opposed tosimply recognizing them (see Smith, 1993; Ellis, 2005; Bygate, 2001; Bygate & Samuda,
2005; Long & Robinson, 1998; Samuda, 2001 to learn more). Looking at practices, almost no“TBLT” implementations published in the Japanese EFL context fully encompass theseelements. Researchers and practitioners tend to have prerequisite target linguistic forms indesigning classes no matter how consciously they are doing so.
2.3. Part 2
In part 2, teachers discussed their localized “TBLT” teaching practices with handouts
that they had been asked to bring to the workshop. This phase was intended as an opportunity
for teachers to clarify the contents of the presentation phase and reflect on their own
classroom practices in the context of what they had learned. As interaction between thepresenter and the teachers was an integral component to the discussions, this part was also
conducted in English.
2.4. Part 3
In this phase, focus group discussions were carried out, and analyzed using a content
analysis approach (c.f. Morgan, 2002). Broadly speaking, focus group data collection is aninterview technique involving multiple members collectively focusing on a topic which isrelated to the participants’ interests and experiences (Wilkinson, 2008). This study employedfocus groups under the expectation that interaction between the participants would unveil
unexpected teachers’ insights (Morgan, 1997). In the focus group, the group members freely
discussed the three guiding principles without being given any specific questions andinstructions. The focus group discussions were audio-recorded, and being listened by the98Working	
  Papers	
  in	
  Language	  Education	  and	
  Research	
  Vol.	
  1	
  No.	  1	  February	  2013,	  94	
  -­‐	
  106	  	
  researcher. Then, the salient themes of the discussions were listed and labeled for each groupby the researcher. Then, each time participants discussed a particular was counted, and theduration of each mention was timed. In a case where participants discussed two themes, themention was counted for both themes, and the duration of time was equally divided into two.
After the overall picture of the discussion had been captured, teachers’ utterances related tothe three guiding principles were closely investigated so as to understand their deeper insights.

3. DISCUSSION

3.1. Analysis of the workshop discussions
Figure 1 shows the percentage of how long each theme was discussed in the two
discussion groups.

Pressure	
  from	  Interlanguage	
  level	   Teacher	
  readiness	
  parents	
  
6%	
  
5%	
  
6%	
  
Entrance	  examinaCon	
  Grammar	
  	
  
7%	
  
31%	
  
Textbook	
  7%	
  Pedagogy	
  	
  
19%	
  

Syllabus	
  	
  TBLA	
  9%	
   10%	  Figure. 1. Themes discussed in groups
The most discussed theme was grammar (31%).

This includes how to address form

instruction. The second most discussed theme was pedagogy (19%). This encompasses
classroom management, setting a time limit for task completion, and task complexity. Given
that it might be premature to claim that the most discussed topic was the most impacted, this99

Working	
  Papers	
  in	
  Language	  Education	  and	
  Research	
  Vol.	
  1	
  No.	  1	  February	  2013,	  94	
  -­‐	
  106	  	
  is at least evident that teachers are concerned about grammar to a large extent. On the other
hand, it is also intriguing that teachers extensively discussed practical matters, pedagogy(mainly how to operate tasks in class), even though it was not a part of the guiding principles.
According to the results, teachers seem mostly concerned with what they can do in classroom
teaching (50%). In other words, they might feel more in control of teaching practices rather
than syllabus design and TBLA which often involve other stakeholders.
In order to further explore the most impacted principle, grammar, the parts whichstrongly connect with the theme were transcribed and translated into English by the researcher.
In the next section, I will discuss what is challenges and constrains of teachers related togrammar instruction within a TBLT framework.
3.2. Evidenced challenges and constraints in relation to linguistic form instruction
It is evident from the initial analysis that teachers are most concerned about how toaddress form instruction in a TBLT framework.

All teachers expressed their lack ofconfidence in particular, and to what extent and at which timing they should offer grammar
instruction. The problems seem fairly complex due to multiple factors influencing theirteaching practices, such as class-management, pressure of high-stakes entrance examinations,and misconceptions that form-instruction cannot happen in TBLT, which correspond withprevious findings (c.f. Carless, 2007). Nakatsu (pseudonym) hinted her uncertainty towardform-instruction in TBLT in the following excerpt. She mentioned:
I guess there are students who notice from a lot of linguistic input. Like, this word
equals to this meaning, and there might be students who use dictionaries as an aid tounderstand the input. However, there might be students who have difficulties doing so.

100

Working	
  Papers	
  in	
  Language	  Education	  and	
  Research	
  Vol.	
  1	
  No.	  1	  February	  2013,	  94	
  -­‐	
  106	  	
  So, I think it is also very good to give form-related feedback, but certain times explicit
knowledge helps…

This quote may indicate her dilemma between her wish to have students engage in a task
without explicit presentation of the target form and her anxiety that not all students perfectly
perform in the task. She sounds unsure how much and in which stage she could provide
explicit linguistic input to students within a TBLT framework. This might indicate that she
cannot completely be away from a PPP framework in which learners are fully equipped withthe target linguistic elements before task-engagement.
Nakatsu’s following account further suggests she needs more extensive training tosuccessfully facilitate a task.
At least when I was taking English lessons in XXX, I mean, I have experienced TBLT
as a freshman student, but it was TBLT lesson where students tried to manage tasks
based on the knowledge learned in junior and senior high school, right? Even though I
tried tasks in junior high school with that experience, saying like “let’s do it”, there isnothing they can output out of nothing.

Even though Nakatsu claimed to have learned TBLT in a class in a teachers’ training course,
it seems difficult for her to embrace the situation where students are not fully equipped withtarget linguistic elements needed to complete a task. It might illustrate the pressure which she
might feel to teach the target grammar forms presented in the authorized textbooks, but this101

Working	
  Papers	
  in	
  Language	  Education	  and	
  Research	
  Vol.	
  1	
  No.	  1	  February	  2013,	  94	
  -­‐	
  106	  	
  also suggests that teachers might assume that linguistic forms need to be inductively taught
for students to remember them.
Another challenge identified was the pressure from high-stakes examinations by whichteachers strongly feel grammar should be mainly taught in class and their misconception oftasks being as oral activities. Furukawa (pseudonym), who had been involved in a SELHi
project, expressed his struggles as follows:
I guess if authorized textbooks change, the condition might change, but ultimately it is
the Center Examination in Japan.

About 250 students in our school take theexamination, and for them what’s asked in the exam counts everything. In other words,
the style of the exam decides everything. As Researcher B mentioned, it is true that
listening components have been incorporated to increase the questions related toconversation by 30 to 40 percent, but if it comes to question 6, reading long passages,
unless we enhance students’ vocabulary, grammar and syntax in class to read long
passages, even though we are delivering communicative lessons just for fun, unless they
can get scores at the Center exam, like 120 or 140 scores, the score they target to passtheir target universities…Anyway, I was discussing with Terui during lunchtime, themore students start to go to cram schools, the more we deliver this type of lesson…

This quote hints that Furukawa misconceptualizes that any communicative way of teachingdoes not include form instruction or reading instruction.

His reference, “communicative

lessons just for fun,” could indicate that he understands tasks as oral activities rather thanteaching practices to enhance students’ holistic academic competence of English.

102

He

Working	
  Papers	
  in	
  Language	  Education	  and	
  Research	
  Vol.	
  1	
  No.	  1	  February	  2013,	  94	
  -­‐	
  106	  	
  attributes the reasons why it was difficult to implement communicative type English teaching(which he claims as TBLT) to the Center Examination which includes reading comprehension
questions based on long reading passages. This suggests that teachers’ misconceptions thattasks cannot be utilized to enhance reading ability have negatively influenced the teachers’
decisions toward adopting tasks.

Furthermore, it also hints that introducing tasks

incorporating reading and better guidance on how to address linguistic form instruction, suchas FonF may have an impact on teachers’ willingness to implement TBLT.
Based on the data analysis, there was emerging evidence suggesting that teachers needmore training in better manipulating principle 2 in tasks and in better facilitating reading intasks. It was revealed that teachers are likely to adhere to inductive ways of grammar
instruction because teachers are not informed enough of ways to address deductive grammar
instruction in a TBLT framework. In particular, understanding the timing and the extent ofform instruction was expressed as challenges by teachers in focus group discussions. Other
things becoming apparent were that enhancing reading comprehension skills is one of the
major concerns for the high-stakes examinations and that teachers strongly believe thatgrammar input is the most appropriate way to enhance reading comprehension ability. Ifteachers are introduced to up-to date SLA theories and practices to better foster reading
comprehension skills, it might provide alternative perspectives to tasks. In other words,
teachers’ better understanding of SLA might open up possibilities to better understand TBLT.
Thus, extensive teacher trainings in light of TBLT and SLA could encourage teachers toincorporate principle 2 into their teaching practices in secondary school settings in Japan.

103

Working	
  Papers	
  in	
  Language	  Education	  and	
  Research	
  Vol.	
  1	
  No.	  1	  February	  2013,	  94	
  -­‐	
  106	  	
  4. CONCLUSION

This study investigated a group of Japanese teachers’ perceptions, challenges andconstraints in relation to TBLT. Teachers’ in-depth voices suggested that 1) teachers are mostconcerned about grammar instruction; 2) teachers feel their limited understanding of how toeffectively facilitate tasks in terms of form-instruction; 3) teachers believe that inductive
grammar instruction is necessary to succeed in better comprehending reading texts in highstakes examinations. With better understanding the ways to facilitate form-instruction intasks and expanding teachers’ repertoires of enhancing reading comprehension skills, there
would be a possibility that the principle 2 could be successfully adopted in secondary school
contexts. However, the researcher acknowledges the limitation that this discussion makes less
impact without encompassing societal constraints, such as assessment at the school level andthe exam system in Japan (Goto, 2011). Since this paper is limited in scope, I did not expand
the discussion to the institutional level.

At the same time, the researcher is aware that the

proposed suggestions to overcome the challenges also make less sense without remedying thesocietal constraints. Yet, these grass-root level changes could make an impact to some extent
because teachers are the locus of making changes in designing and delivering English classes.
Indeed, it is hoped that the findings of this study, embedded constraints and challenges ofsecondary school teachers, could help to shape glocalized forms of TBLT in the context ofJapan.

5. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

RILS&LE funding was used to present the findings of this research at the Task-Based
Language Learning Conference in New Zealand, November 2011.

104

Working	
  Papers	
  in	
  Language	  Education	  and	
  Research	
  Vol.	
  1	
  No.	  1	  February	  2013,	  94	
  -­‐	
  106	  	
  6. REFERENCES

Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In
Bygate, M., Skehan, P. & Swain, M. (2001). (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks second
language learning and testing. (pp. 21-48). Harlow, UK: Longman.
Bygate, M. & V.Samuda. (2005). Integrative planning through the use of task repetition. In R.
Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam, The
Netherlands: New York: Benjamins.
Carless, D. (2007). The suitability of task-based approaches for secondary schools: Perspectives
from Hong Kong. System, 35, 595-608.
Dewey, J. (1993). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmilllan/ Collier.
Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and task performance in the second language. Amsterdam, The
Netherlands: John Benjamin.
Goto, B. Y. (2011). The implementation of communicative and task-based language teaching in
the Asia- pacific region. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 36-57.
Littlewood, W. (2007). Communicative and task-based language teaching in East AsianClassrooms. Language Teaching, 40, 243-249.
Long, M. H. , & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C.
Doughty & J. Willings (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp.
15-41). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Morgan, L.D. (1997). Focus group as qualitative research. London: Sage.
Morgan, D.L. (2002). Focus group interviewing. In J. F. Gubrium & J.A. Holstein (Eds.),
Handbook of interview research (pp. 141-159). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

105

Working	
  Papers	
  in	
  Language	  Education	  and	
  Research	
  Vol.	
  1	
  No.	  1	  February	  2013,	  94	
  -­‐	
  106	  	
  Samuda, V. (2001). Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance:
The role of the teacher. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researchingpedagogic tasks: Second language instruction (pp. 287-318). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Sato, R. (2010). Reconsidering the effectiveness and suitability of PPP and TBLT in theJapanese EFL classroom. JALT Journal, 32 (2), 189-201.
Smith, M. M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 15, 165-179.
Takashima, H. (2005). Eigono tasuku katsudoto tasuku [Task Activities and Tasks for FormFocused Instruction and Assessment]. Tokyo, Japan: Taishukan.
Van den Branden, K., Bygate, M., & Norris, J. M. (2009). Task-based language
teaching: A reader. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Wilkinson, S. (2008). Analyzing interaction in focus groups. In P. Drew, G. Raymond & D.
Weinberg (Eds.), Talk and interaction in social research methods (pp. 50-62). London:
Sage.

106