APPLICATIONS OF CONSCIOUSNESS-RAISING IN AN EFL CONTEXT
Brett Laybutt
College of Business and Communication

ABSTRACTWith a new college entrance exam system featuring speaking and writing starting in 2020 there havebeen calls for Japanese teachers of English to take a more communicative approach in the classroom, as
opposed to the traditional Grammar-Translation method of yudoku. However, previous attempts at
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) have foundered due to Japanese-speaking teachers ofEnglish reported lack of confidence in their own speaking abilities to be able to apply communicative
methodologies in the classroom. This paper will introduce Consciousness Raising (C-R) and how C-R
tasks may be particularly suitable for a Japanese context.

INTRODUCTION
In September 2017, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT)
announced yet another overhaul of the Japanese college entrance exam system, starting in 2020. The
new system, perhaps with a view to the Olympics also coming in the same year, places a new emphasison communicative skills of speaking and writing corresponding to the international standard Common
European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and will for the first time allow private
testing companies to conduct the tests in conjunction with the National Center Test for University
Admissions multiple-choice listening-reading format. As a result, there have been calls for Japaneseteachers of English to adopt the more output-oriented Communicative Approach to language teaching
and incorporate more speaking activities in the classroom. Yet despite interest and enthusiasm in CA byteachers themselves there has been very little uptake on actual classroom practice. Most Japanesespeaking teachers of English report a lack of confidence in their own speaking abilities to be able toapply CA techniques in the classroom and there have also been some questions as to whether theCommunicative Approach to language teaching is in fact appropriate in a Japanese context where
teacher-fronted lessons and minimal expectations of student participation are the norm. This paper will
introduce Consciousness Raising (C-R) and C-R tasks and demonstrate how these tasks may help

1

overcome these difficulties and be used for pedagogical grammar teaching in a way that promotes moreautonomous and communicative learning for an EFL context in Japan.

BACKGROUND LITERATURE
All pedagogical grammar, by drawing attention to certain grammatical forms, can be said to be a form of
consciousness-raising in a way. Generally speaking, C-R can be defined as:
The deliberate attempt to draw the learner’s attention
specifically to the formal properties of the target language(Rutherford & Sharwood Smith, 1985:274)

Consciousness Raising is a theory of language acquisition whereby conscious attention to linguistic
form, without an attendant need for production or immediate output of that form, can directly play a rolein developing target language acquisition. C-R contrasts to an “accumulated entities” approach, wherelanguage learning “entails the successive mastery of steadily accumulating structural entities”(Rutherford, 1987:4). It was pointed out, however, that this is not how language learning actually works
and that learners usually pass through several stages of non-targetlike language (Long & Robinson,1998). These stages demonstrate that the learning progression is instead a process of creating andrejecting hypotheses about the L2 as new data is added (Rutherford, 1987:18). These hypotheses stemfrom what the learner, consciously or unconsciously, ‘knows’ about the structure of language from their
L1 (the ‘familiar’) and are then applied and refined to the target language (the ‘unfamiliar’). The learnermight make some L2 errors while forming these hypotheses but these errors will not violate underlying
principles.
C-R theory also posits explicit instruction as being a necessary part of the process of grammaticalcompetence, though perhaps not sufficient in itself (Rutherford, 1987). Unlike Krashen’s theory where
there can be no transfer between learned and acquired knowledge (Nunan, 1999:44), C-R theory statesthat conscious learning can access underlying L1 structures and therefore have a direct effect onacquisition, with formal instruction accelerating the progression of acquisition leading to higher levels of
the L2 (Doughty & Williams, 1998). Ellis (1994), for example, provides some evidence from various
studies demonstrating that instruction does have an effect on proficiency and accuracy while Nunan2(1999) shows some relationship between instruction and levels of acquisition. Fotos (1993) also
demonstrates that C-R successfully promoted grammatical proficiency gains.

There are three main features that define a C-R Task:
Isolate a linguistic feature for attention;

Provide data to be analysed;

Elicit some rule regarding the use of this linguistic feature.
(Willis & Willis, 1996:64)

Methods of isolating linguistic features can take many forms (Rutherford & Sharwood Smith). One
example, as in Appendix A, might be highlighting a simple grammatical rule through to more complex
elaborations, and with more or less teacher guidance, or explicitness. C-R tasks may also be used invocabulary instruction, as in Appendix B. Some of the practices of C-R have been included to somedegree in many course books used today (Nitta & Gardener, 2005). Indeed, one criticism that has been
made of C-R is that many of its applications are already being used anyway (Hopkins & Nettle, 2005).
Out of theory of language acquisition that characterizes C-R there has arisen a number of otherapproaches to formal grammatical instruction, such as Task Based Learning (Ellis, 2003) and Data
Driven Learning (Johns, 1991). C-R Tasks can thus be seen as “one part of a larger pedagogical context”(Rutherford & Sharwood Smith, 1985:280). The applications and benefits of C-R-Tasks are not limited,
however, to just grammatical acquisition.

APPLICATIONS OF CONSCIOUSNESS-RAISING
C-R Tasks and Learner Styles
As mentioned above C-R does not emphasise the role of output and one benefit might be on learnerstyles and strategies. The concept of the “good language learner” has gained ground since the mid-1970s
and there is evidence of the usefulness of building learner strategies (Brown, 2000). However, Japanese
students in particular tend to differ in learning style preferences (Reid, 1987:93) and a study by Busch(1982) found, in fact, no significant difference between extroverted and introverted Japanese students’proficiency. In a Japanese educational context, therefore, where students are overly dependent onteacher-led instruction and often lack the appropriate strategies for more productive tasks C-R-Tasks,
rather than practicing the linguistic forms, may be more appropriate. There is also some evidence that3pushing the use of strategies in class can be problematic (Ellis,1994). Forced output, for example, may
have the opposite result and make the student more self-conscious and reluctant to speak (Batstone,2001). C-R-tasks, rather than building competence, could instead help facilitate the use of rule-inducing
strategies without the pressure of production, although more research is still needed into whether
learning strategies can be changed (Nunan, 1995).

C-R-Tasks and Motivation
In EFL contexts such as Japan students have little opportunity for real interaction outside the classroom.
As such students often have little real instrumental motivation, or practical goals, beyond the classroom
itself (Lightbrown & Spada, 2006). A goal of “spontaneous, unreflecting language use” (SharwoodSmith, 1981:159) can seem too distant (Li, 2001) and this can affect students’ motivation. In such cases
the intellectual nature of the task alone, regardless of actual language use, can provide a classroom focus.
This may especially be the case for those “Japanese students who prefer not to initiate in class”(Holliday, 1994:170) and C-R tasks may help teachers be sensitive to those students unwilling to speakout in class (Brown, 2000:156). The novelty of the task alone may serve to provide motivation (Azer,1994), regardless of whether the language is used correctly or not.

C-R-Tasks and Pragmatics
In an EFL context C-R tasks can prove to be particularly useful in the areas of discourse and pragmatics.
There is no reason why the concept of ‘rules’ cannot be extended to include discussion of differingmodes of discourse and pragmatic ‘rules’, such as politeness strategies or ways of building cohesion
within a text. These can be particularly difficult for EFL learners who do not have as much access todirect input outside the classroom as ESL learners might have. Yet there is also some evidence that thesepragmatic features can be successfully learned through explicit instruction in the classroom(Lightbrown & Spada, 2006). Rutherford (1987) gives some examples for advanced learners ofhighlighting discourse patterns in a written text. C-R tasks can also be utilised for lower level classes
with simple functions, such as ‘giving advice’ in Appendix C where the learners are asked to formulate asimple rule.
An important point that also must be considered for pragmatics is the fact that “not all English learners
wish to behave pragmatically just like native speakers” (Eslami-Raskeh, 2005:207). Within both an ESL

4and an EFL context learners must contend with a host of wider and often conflicting socio-cultural
discourses (Roberts, 2001) that can make some learners resistant to the ‘teaching’ of pragmatics. In myown teaching situation learners can have a strong sense of wanting to retain their own identities whilestill wanting to learn about pragmatic aspects of studying English; the learners are interested in aspects
of English-speaking culture without necessarily wanting to practise them formally. As such, discussing
differences between L1 and L2 pragmatic features rather than practicing them may be preferable(LoCastro, 2003). By creating some distance between the text and the learner and removing the pressureof production C-R-Tasks offer a way for learners to discuss these pragmatic features “without being
coerced into particular choices” (Roberts, 2001).

CONCLUSION

C-R theory, therefore, puts forward a theory in which conscious decisions by the learner and formal
instruction of linguistic items can play a necessary role in L2 acquisition. While there is still theoreticaland empirical debate over the validity of this theory and whether this does, in fact, result in significant
long-term effects, C-R tasks applied to the areas of learner strategies, discourse and pragmatics may
prove more useful, as opposed to the original grammatical focus. Focusing on these areas may beespecially applicable within an EFL context and more research, especially long-term, into the effects ofC-R-Tasks for EFL learners on these factors may thus prove beneficial.

5BIBLIOGRAPHY
Batstone, R. (2001) Contexts of engagement: a discourse perspective on ‘intake’ and ‘pushed output’,
System, Vol. 30/1:1-14
Brown, H.D. (2000) Principles of Language Learning and Teaching, 4th Edition, New York, Addison
Wesley Longman, Inc
Doughty, C. & Williams, J., Eds. (1998) Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Ellis, R. (1994) The Study of Second Language Acquisition, Oxford: Oxford University Press
Eslami-Raskeh, Z. (2005) Raising the practical awareness of language learners, ELT Journal, Vol.
59/3:199-208
Fotos, S.S. (1993) Consciousness Raising and Noticing through Focus on Form: Grammar Task
Performance versus Formal Instruction, Applied Linguistics, Vol. 14/4:385-407
Holliday, A. (1994) Appropriate Methodology and Social Context, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press
Johns, T.F. (1991) Should you be Persuaded: Two Samples of Data-Driven Learning Materials, English
Language Research Journal, Vol. 4:1-16
Lightbrown, P.M. & Spada, N. (2006) How Languages are Learned, 3rd Ed., Oxford: Oxford
University Press
LoCastro, V. (2003) An Introduction to Pragmatics: Social Action for Language Teachers, Michigan:
University of Michigan Press
Nitta, R. & Gardener, S. (2005) Consciousness-raising and practice in ELT coursebooks, ELT Journal,
Vol. 59/1:3-13
Nunan, D. (1995) Closing the Gap between Learning and Instruction, TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 29/1:133158
Nunan, D. (1999) Second Language Teaching and Learning, Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers
Reid, J.M. (1987) The Learning Style Preferences of ESL Students, TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 21/1:87104
Rutherford, W.E. (1987) Second Language Grammar: Learning and Teaching, Harlow, England:
Pearson Education Ltd.
Rutherford, W.E. & Sharwood Smith, M. (1985) Consciousness-raising and Universal Grammar,
Applied Linguistics, Vol. 6:274-282
Sharwood Smith, M. (1981) Consciousness-Raising and the Second Language Learner, AppliedLinguistics, Vol. 11/2:159-168
Willis, J. & Willis, D., Eds. (1996) Challenge and Change in Language Teaching, Oxford: Macmillan
Education

6

Appendix A
Which of the following sentences do you think are acceptable?
E.g. 1. The tower was hit by lightning during the storm.
E.g. 2. I hid under the bed while the storm.
a. I usually watch TV while I eat dinner.
b. My phone rang while I was sleeping.
c. I fell asleep while reading the newspaper.
d. The phone rang during dinner.
e. I couldn’t sleep during the flight to Australia.
f. I lost my wallet during walking to school.









Look at the words ‘while’ and ‘during’. What kinds of words and phrases can come after them?
Is there any difference between them?

Please complete the following table and write the difference between ‘while’ and ‘during’ inyour own words:Sentence
Verb + ing
Nounwhile:_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

during:____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

7

Appendix B
What’s the difference between ‘see’, look at’ and ‘watch’?
Please read the following story and underline ‘see’, ‘look at’ and ‘watch’:
Last year I went to Kyoto for my summer vacation. In Kyoto there are so manythings to see, like temples and shrines. They were very beautiful. I also saw
some interesting museums and galleries full of Japanese art. I walked around
Gion and saw lots of old traditional houses. However I think my favourite thing
was Nijo Castle. In the castle there was a painting of a tiger. It was sobeautiful I stood and looked at it for 10 minutes! The castle also had a garden
where I sat and watched the colourful carp swimming in the pond and drank sometea. That night I watched the fireworks near the river. While I was watching thefireworks I suddenly saw my friend from Australia. What a coincidence! It was avery nice trip.
Please complete the following table with either O or X:
Who or what is moving in the story? Is it a surprise?

MeIt

NeitherSurprise

SeeLook atWatch
Can you one explain the difference between ‘see’, ‘look at’ and ‘watch’ in your own words?
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Can you think of more examples?
SEELOOK AT

WATCH

8

Appendix C
Giving Advice Task-Sheet
Task 1:
How would you give advice to someone in Japanese? Is there a difference between strong
advice and soft advice? Do you think English is the same?
Task 2:
Look at the following phrases. Which ones are strong advice? Which ones are soft advice?


Do it.
If I were you, I’d do it.
You should do it.
It might be a good idea if you do it.
Make sure you do it.
You ought to do it.

Task 3:
Put the phrases into the diagram below.
STRONG

SOFT
Task 4:
What do you think the differences are between strong phrases and soft phrases?
Can you complete the difference below in your own words?
A strong phrase:
A soft phrase:.
.

9