TBLT 2009 Lancaster Applying Content- and Task-Based Instruction in an EAP Project on Postmodernism Aviva Soesman Tel Aviv University [email protected]

TBLT 2009 Lancaster

Applying Content- and Task-Based Instruction in an EAPProject on Postmodernism

Aviva SoesmanTel Aviv University

[email protected]

Presentation Outline

Content-based Instruction – rationale / benefitsTask-based Instruction – rationale / benefitsThe projectStudents’ feedback

Content-based Instruction

“the concurrent learning of a specific content and related language use skills” with “the selection and sequence of language elements determined by the content ” (Brinton, 2007: 11)

Different models

Common concept: integration/knowledge

Content-based Instruction: WHY?

Removes “arbitrary distinction” (Brinton, 2007: 17)

Language learning more authentic - language in context and used for communicating meaning =real world (e.g., Garner & Borg, 2005; Pally, 2000)

Added Knowledge (Stoller, 2002; Wesche,1993); “Two-for-one” (Wesche & Skehan, 2002: 221)Therefore: Motivation / Engagement (Nunan, 2004)Vocabulary reinforcement (Shih, 1992; Murphy &

Stoller, 2001)Schemata (Pally, 2000)

CBI in EAP: WHY?

Bridges Gap between EFL and other courses Simulation of University settings – authentic /

relevant (Stoller, 2004; Wesche & Skehan, 2002)

Simulation of actual subject matter - motivating/ relevant

Variety of similar subject matter = better preparation for needed skills (Shih, 1992; Kirschner & Wexler, 2002; Garner & Borg, 2005)

“The most educationally appropriate approach” for EAP (Garner & Borg, 2005: 120)

TBI: WHY?

Communicative Activities and Meaningful language use (Jeon & Hahn, 2006; Nunan, 2004)

Student-centered / autonomy (Flinch, 2005)

“Learning by doing”, active (Lingley, 2006; Nunan, 2004)

Collaboration (Ellis, 2003; Cobb & Lovick, 2007)

Authentic – real life and academia (Nunan, 2006; Shih, 1992)

TBI: WHY?

Breaks Routine (Cobb & Lovick, 2007)Cognitive investment/mental effort = deeper

language processing = long-term retention (Cobb & Lovick, 2007)

Functional reading, read for clear purpose (Bogaert, 2005)

Therefore:Student engagement and increased

motivation (e.g. Cobb & Lovick, 2007; Nunan, 2004; Willis, 1996)

CBI and TBI

Traditional CBI and TBIFocus on discrete

language and reading

comprehension skills

Focus on acquiring, synthesizin

g and applying

knowledge

Linguistic Knowledge

Academic Literacy

A Learning Sequence on PM

FrameworkFive lessons – two core texts + other materials- Activities acquiring knowledge

- Activities applying knowledge

Oral presentations

The Tasks

Jigsaw – information gap task - groupsMovie (Blade Runner)Jigsaw – pairsPictures – reach consensus

Steps, Interaction, Non-linguistic purpose, Meaning,

Cognitive, Observable Outcome (Cobb and Lovick, 2007)

Simulation of academic tasks

Integrative Project

Subtasks and oral presentationPurpose of oral presentationThree stages 1.Choose piece

2.Find source3.Give

presentationInstructions

Rationale

Natural sequence, but student-centeredSimulation of academia:

-access academic sources-synthesize information-apply theory, show understanding-analyze work of art-oral presentation

Oral presentations (King, 2002; Kirschner & Wexler, 2002)

Students’ Feedback

Understanding of PM: 4.9Asking questions only: 1.8Good assessment tool: 3.8Important skills: 3.7

Negative commentsPositive comments

In Conclusion

Applicability in different EAP contexts

References

Bogaert, N. (2005, September). A task-based route to Academic Literacy. Paper presented at the International Conference on Task-Based Language Teaching. Leuven, Belgium.

Brinton, D. M. (2007, June). Content-Based Instruction: Reflecting on its Applicability to the Teaching of Korean. Paper presented at the12th Annual Conference American Association of Teachers of Korean. Chicago, Illinois.

Cobb, M. and Lovick, N. (2007, September). The Concept of Foreign Language Task, Misconceptions and Benefits in Implementing Task-based Instruction. Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on Task-Based Language Teaching. Hawaii.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Flinch, A. E. (2005). The postmodern language teacher: The future of task-based teaching. Unpublished Document. Retrieved October 2008 from http://www.tblt.org/download/finch_handout.doc.

Garner, M. & Borg, E. (2005). An ecological perspective on content-based instruction. Journal of

English for Academic Purposes, 4, 119-134. Jeon, I. & Hahn, J. (2006). Exploring EFL Teachers' Perceptions of Task-Based Language Teaching: A

Case Study of Korean Secondary School Classroom Practice. Asian EFL Journal, 8 (1). Retrieved October 2008 from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/March_06_ijj.php

References – Cont.

King, J. (2002). Preparing EFL learners for oral presentations. The Internet TESL Journal, 8(3). Retrieved on 12 January 2003 from http://iteslj.org/Lessons/King-PublicSpeaking.

Kirschner, M. & Wexler, C. (2002). Caravaggio: A design for an interdisciplinary content-based

EAP/ESP unit. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1, 163-183.

Lingley, D. 2006. A Task-based Approach to Teaching a Content-based Canadian Studies Course in an EFL Context. Asian EFL Journal, 8 (3). Retrieved October 2008 from http://asian-efl-journal.com/Sept_06_dn.php.

Murphy, J.M. and Stoller, F.L. (2001). Sustained-Content Language Teaching: An emerging definition. TESOL Journal, 10 (2/3), 3-6.

Nunan. D. (2004). Task-based Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nunan, D. (2006). Task-based language teaching in the Asian context: Defining ‘task’. Asian EFL

Journal,8 (3). Retrieved October 2008 from http://asian-efl-journal.com/Sept_06_dn.php.

Pally, M. (2000). Sustaining interest/advancing learning: Sustained content-based instruction in ESL/EFL – Theoretical background and rationale. In M. Pally (Ed.). Sustained Content Teaching in Academic ESL/EFL: A Practical Approach (pp. 1-18). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

REFERENCES – Cont.

Shih, M. (1992). Beyond comprehension exercises in the ESL academic reading Class. TESOL Quarterly, 26(2), 289-318.

Stoller, F. L. (2002). Content-Based Instruction: A Shell for Language Teachingor a Framework for Strategic Language and Content Learning? Retrieved 20 January 2009 from http://www.carla.umn.edu/cobaltt/modules/strategies/Stoller2002/READING1/stoller2002.htm

Stoller, F. L. (2004). Content-based instruction: Perspectives on curriculum planning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 261-283.

Wesche, M. B. (1993). Discipline-based approaches to language study: Research issues and outcomes. In M. Krueger & F. Ryan (Eds.), Language and Content: Discipline- and Content-based Approaches to Language Study (pp. 57-82). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.

Wesche, M.B. & Skehan, P. (2002). Communicative, Task-based and Content-based language instruction. In R. B. Kaplan (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics (pp. 207-228). New York: OUP.

Willis, D. (1996). A Framework for Task-Based Learning. London: Longman

Documents

TBLT 2009 Lancaster Applying Content- and Task-Based Instruction in an EAP Project on Postmodernism Aviva Soesman Tel Aviv University [email protected]