目前任务型语言教学是否适合中国高中英语学习者

目前任务型语言教学是否适合中国高中英语学习者

孙千慧

昆士兰大学

Is task-based language teaching suitable for Chinese high school English learners

Sun Qianhui

University of Queensland

Introduction

This essay will argue that the TBLT is not suited to English learners in high school in China at present. TBLT as a language teaching method that focuses on making use of the tasks as the tool and emphasizes meaning and communication (Ellis, 2013). Besides, the PPP model teaches language based on the teacher’s presentation, learner’s practice and production, which combine the classic deductive approach and natural communicative practice. Lots of studies illustrated the important role of TBLT in language teaching in China (Xiqin, 2004; Ziwen, 2002; Weihua, 2007). Also, some studies pointed out the TBLT/CLT could be used to teach English as an international language, because the EIL brought about the variety of English (McKay, 2002; Sharifian, 2009). However, they neglect the challenges and limitations. Although the TBLT has impacted the English pedagogy worldwide, the implementation of task-based language teaching for the high school English learners is still a big challenge. More and more studies focus on the incompatibility between TBLT and the Chinese high school educational context (Carless, 2009; Littlewood, 2007; Adams & Newton, 2009). This essay points out the reason why TBLT is not suitable and why PPP model can be used to teach EIL in Chinese high school at present. At first, the article proposes that the TBLT is suited to teach English as an international English, and then the counterargument is proposed under the Chinese high school situation. From the perspective of the student, teacher, classroom and institution, the essay prove that PPP model is more suited to teach EIL in the Chinese high school at present.

Explanation of all key concepts

TBLT is a language approach which emphasizes the utilization of purposeful and functional language base on tasks (Ellis, 2013). When the students participate in the tasks, they should focus on the meaning and communicative competences through the real-world tasks. Conversely, the traditional language teaching approaches concentrate on the lexical forms, grammatical knowledge and phonological forms (Long, 2000). More importantly, the TBLT highlights the learner-centred form instead of the teacher-controlled form. By contrast, TBLT encourages the learners to work in pairs or groups and rely on their language knowledge and strategies to complete tasks (Ellis, 2013).

Additionally, presentation-practice-production model is a method that is used to teach language. It has three phases, such as teacher’s presentation, student’s practice and free production. The PPP model moves from high teacher control towards free production, so it allows the learners to move from the teacher’s support towards self-support Carless (2009). The teacher as informant and conductor control the class in the presentation stage and practice stage. Afterwards, in the production stage, the teacher encourages students to use the target language in a freer way. Therefore, the PPP model focuses on grammar and communication. Eventually, English as an International Language (EIL) means with the spread of English globally, the pluralization of English forms produce all around the world (McKay, 2002). Therefore, EIL leads to the variety and complexity of English. EIL implies a new way of communication between different nationalities and cultures.

EIL and TBLT

Sharifian (2009) stated that due to the complex roles and status of English, the teaching models and methodologies required the TBLT/CLT, which adapts to the variety and complexity of English by natural communication. Similarly, McKay (2002) considered that traditional language teaching is no longer appropriate for the language learner. More specifically, the spread of English has brought with the complexity in use, and the essential function of EIL is to communicate with others. Therefore, the teaching method should adopt TBLT to teach English as an international language. Moreover, the rise of international communication among the people come from perse countries, so communication plays a significant role in the method that teaches English as an international language. Nevertheless, for Chinese high school, there are lots of challenges and constraints at present.

Student-related limitations

From the English learner’s perspectives, there are two main limitations of the implementation of TBLT to teach Chinese high school students. First of all, the college entrance examination lead to high school students focus on grammatical accuracy. The interview findings represented that almost all the participants expressed the requirement of the teachers’ more explanation (Yi & Thanh, 2018). This result of the study showed the students’ dependency upon the teachers’ instructions had a high level. Therefore, the Chinese English learners require the explicit grammar instructions which guided by the teachers step by step. Even though the EIL require communication, it also needs the grammatical basics. Without grammatical knowledge, the learners cannot communicate with others successful. In other words, the EIL lead to a variety of grammar so that the learners need to realize the difference between the standard English and Chinglish systematically (Henry, 2010). Furthermore, the TBLT emphasizes the meaning of language in tasks, so it requires that learners participate in meaning-centred tasks (Ellis2003). Although the TBLT includes the focus on form as the method that transfers learners’ attention to linguistic elements when they arise incidentally in language classes (Long, 2000), TBLT does not involve the explicit grammar teaching and explanation of grammar. However, from the above, not only are Chinese high school students required to focus on the grammar because of the examination, but they also rely on the teachers’ instruction. Hence, the Chinese high school students cannot stray from explicitly grammatical instruction completely.

Moreover, Carless (2009) stated that Hong Kong senior school students preferred to choose PPP models. According to the result, some learners feel comfortable and confident with the PPP model, because it includes the explicitly grammatical instruction. In addition, as for the Yi & Thanh’s study, the majority of the participants (eight in ten) expressed the reluctance for the language class without the grammatical instruction. In other words, the participants cannot accept the TBLT, which focuses on the communicative task (Yi & Thanh, 2018). For instance, due to some Chinese participants felt timid to provide the ideas without the instruction, the group discussions were discontinued and had long silences. Moreover, the Chinese high school students’ average English proficiency level is limited, so it is quite difficult to integrate EIL into the classroom by TBLT at present. From my perspective, the PPP model can introduce the EIL better than TBLT. In other words, Chinese students prefer to realize EIL through teacher’s instruction and communication. Finally, from the He & Li’s study, 90% of participants stated that through the teacher’s presentation, they felt less anxious more confident to communicate with others. Hence, the PPP model can facilitate the learners’ communicative motivation.

Due to the Chinese high school learner require the explicit grammar explanation, the PPP model combine the teacher’s guidance and learner’s communication in order to teach EIL in the case of China.

Teacher-related challenges

On the basis of teachers’ perception of TBLT, there are two factors hinder the implementation of TBLT in Chinese high school. On the one hand, most of the teachers considered they had limited knowledge of TBLT in China, so they choose to use the PPP model to teach English as an international language. From the Yuying & Freda & Angela’s research, most Chinese teachers (around 80% of the participants) indicated they had the low level of comprehension of TBLT through self-report. The consequences of the research pointed out that most of the teachers do not want to adopt the TBLT in China because they have not clear cognition how to implement the TBLT in language classes. For example, lack of the reliable specification of implementation of TBLT in China renders the teachers are puzzled over how to play the correct role. In fact, the teachers realized the what is EIL through the PPP model, so they were familiar with how to teach EIL by PPP model (Anderson, 2016).

On the other hand, the largest number of language teachers have been found to approve of the other approaches instead of TBLT to teach EIL in China. Through the questionnaire and interview, Carless (2009) reported that high school teachers in Hong Kong preferred to adopt the presentation-practice-production (PPP) model to teach English rather than TBLT. The PPP model as a teacher-centred tool renders the teacher perceived to be easy to control the classes. In contrast to PPP and traditional approaches, the TBLT is less controlled. The production phase of PPP also involves the interaction so that the learners gain the opportunities to communicate with peers. Therefore, the teachers trend to carry out the PPP model to teach EIL in order to control the class. Furthermore, the TBLT is more time consuming so that it is hard to be used for high school English learners in China who have burdensome study. In the Xinmin & Simon research, each participant was asked to use the TBLT in a high school class. The data of TBLT class were collected by pre-lesson interview, classroom observation and post-lesson interview. All three teachers were beyond the normal course time. They pointed out time pressures were an obstacle to TBLT’s implementation. In a word, the majority of the teachers want to choose the PPP model to teach EIL.

Based on external factors, in fact, Liu (2015) stated that around 75% of participants who were not familiar with TBLT indicated they want to get training. Nevertheless, in order to realize and learn TBLT, the teachers require a long time, because the TBLT is complex and it transforms the teacher’s role towards an assistant one who demands new skills and different point of views (Samuda & Bygate, 2008). Although the teachers are willing to get training, high school only have fewer opportunities. Conversely, PPP model has continued to remain popular as a paradigm for the initial teacher training course, such as the Cambridge CELTA and the Trinity Cert TESOL and in more extensive pre-service teacher education course around the world (Harris 2015). Therefore, most of the teachers familiar with the PPP model, which needs little training and introduction. Hence, because of the limited training opportunity, the PPP model is a better method to teach EIL than TBLT in Chinese high school.

Institution and classroom-related limitations

At present, the overwhelming majority of the high schools focus on examination and have examination-oriented culture, because the scores of college entrance examination determine the rankings of the high school in China. More specifically, the high school’s reputation and attraction are impacted by the final score. Definitely, the examination is based on the lexical, grammatical, and syntactic knowledge, which are incompatible with TBLT (Shehadeh, 2012). Thus, even if some school intend to use the TBLT in English classes, the pressure from the decline in grade and examination-oriented will hinder the attempt (Adams & Newton, 2009). For instance, if a high school adopt the TBLT in the language classroom, on account of the lack of explicitly grammatical instruction, the English learners’ grades will go down so that the ranking of the high school go down, and then the parents of students doubt the competence of the school. In my opinions, the exam culture is so deeply rooted in sociocultural history in China that the implementation of TBLT cannot come true in a short duration of time.

In contrast to the TBLT, PPP model focus on not only grammar but also communication, so PPP model can be utilized to teach EIL under the examination-oriented culture. In addition, the college entrance examination involves many subjects, so each subject is assigned a limited time in Chinese high school. In other words, the limited instruction time cannot support the implementation of TBLT in the language classroom. The time of English classes is typically limited to three or four hours per week (Swan, 2005). At the same time, the teacher should teach new content and knowledge and implement the examination-oriented teaching and drills so that they tend to PPP model which spends less time and yield twice the result with half the effort (Zhang & Hu, 2010). Similarly, from my perspective, the limited time does not give sufficient space for teachers and students to explore the development and innovations of TBLT. More specifically, TBLT spends lots of time in order to let the learners communicate in pairs or groups, whereas each English class just 40 mins. If the teacher adopts TBLT in the classroom, the learners merely accomplish parts of the TBLT. Likewise, according to the Qi & Clare’s study, the classroom observation found out the over 90% participants’ classes did not conform to the standard of TBLT, because of lack of per-task or post-task. On the contrary, Carless (2009) pointed out the teachers completed the PPP model in the normal class time commendably. In a word, the limited class time determine the PPP model is more suited to Chinese high school.

Finally, due to China has a large population, the normal class size is often somewhere between 50-70 English learners. The large class size is not conducive to TBTL, because the teachers are harder to control the classes and tougher to manage the group work (Littlewood, 2007). For example, one teacher uses TBLT in a large language class. It is too difficult to supervise classroom discipline and manage group interactions. Some students are distracted and use L1. In this case, the teacher is considered irresponsible, and the students learn nothing. However, the PPP model is a teacher-centred approach so that it has high control in the language class. Consequently, although the TBLT is a great method to learn the language, the real Chinese situation makes it hard to implement in high school. Meanwhile, the dynamic communication is an essential factor to adapt to the complexity of EIL. Definitely, the PPP model is more suited to teach EIL in Chinese high school.

Pedagogical implications

As we say above, the implementation of TBLT encounters a lot of challenges in China high school at present. Therefore, the Chinese pedagogy requires the transitional period to take in TBLT. In term of the educational situation in China, the transitional period will last a long time. During the transitional period, we should explore ways to solve the problems and reduce the limitation. For example, Lai, Zhao & Wang (2011) proposed the psychological preparation and strategy training guide the English learners to accept the TBLT. Meanwhile, Andon and Eckerth (2009) put forward a set of provisional specifications of TBLT so that the teachers can realize the TBLT easily. Carless (2013) also mentioned that we could start with the small-scale experiment in order to avoid the negative effect. In my opinions, the PPP model is a great method to teach language in Chinese high school, so it as a bridge connects the traditional approach and TBLT. The transformation of the Chinese educational system is a slow process. Hence, the transitional period requires scholars to explore and experiment constantly.

Conclusion

We should acknowledge the limitations on the implementation of TBLT. As far as it goes, the TBLT is not suited to Chinese high school. The examination-oriented culture leads to the students and teachers are unwilling to accept the TBLT in Chinese high school. The teachers also cannot gain sufficient training about the TBLT. The limited learning time and restricted teaching time impose restrictions on the implementation of TBLT. Moreover, TBLT has negative influences on large class size because it is too difficult to control and supervise the classroom. Thus, to carry out the TBLT in Chinese high school is not a good idea at present. Conversely, the PPP model adapts to not only EIL but also examination-oriented culture. Meanwhile, it spends less time and easier to be accepted by teachers and learners in contrast to TBLT. Further, the PPP model has higher control in class than TBLT. Accordingly, the PPP model is more appropriate for Chinese high school students who learn English as an international language. Finally, during the transitional period, the teacher can adopt the PPP model as the point of junction between the traditional approach and TBLT. At the same time, scholars should explore the ways that connect the Chinese educational system and TBLT.

Reference

Adams, R., & Newton, J. (2009). “TBLT in Asia: Opportunities and constraints”. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 19, 1–17.

Anderson J. (2016). ‘Why practice makes perfect sense: the past, present and potential future of the PPP paradigm in language teacher education’ ELT Education and Development 19: 14–22.

Andon, N., & Eckerth, J. (2009). “Chacun à son gout? Task-based L2 pedagogy from the teacher’s point of view”. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19, 286–310.

Carless, D. (2009). “Revisiting the TBLT versus P-P-P debate: Voices from Hong Kong”. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 19, 49–66.

Carless, D. (2013). Innovation in language teaching and learning

. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

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

Ellis, R. (2013). “Task-based language teaching: Responding to the critics”. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 8, 1–27.

Harmer, J. (2009). The Practice of English Language Teaching (4th edn). Harlow: Longman.

He, D., & Li, D. C. S. (2009). Language attitudes and linguistic features in the ‘China English’ debate. World Englishes, 28(1), 70e89.

Henry, E. S. (2010). Interpretations of ‘Chinglish’: native speakers, language learners and the enregisterment of a stigmatized code. Language in Society, 39(5), 669e688.

Harris B. (2015). ‘Where are we now? Current teaching paradigms in pre-service training’. Paper presented at the 49th International IATEFL Annual Conference, Manchester, UK.

Jenkins, J. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching World Englishes and English as a Lingua Franca. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 157-181.

Littlewood, W. (2007). Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian classrooms. Language Teaching, 40, 243–249. 

Liu, Y. (2015). Task-based language teaching (TBLT) in Chinese higher education: EFL teachers’ perceptions. PhD diss., University of Limerick.

Long, M. H. (2000). “Focus on Form in Task-Based Language Teaching.” In Language Policy and Pedagogy: Essays in Honor of A. Ronald Walton, edited by R. Lambert and E. Shohamy, 179–192. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

McKay, S.L. (2002). Teaching English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Qi C., & Clare W. (2016) Contextualization and authenticity in TBLT: Voices from Chinese classrooms. Sage journals, 21, 517-538

Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Shehadeh, A., & Coombe, C. A. (2012). Task-based language teaching in foreign language contexts: Research and implementation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Sharifian, F. (2009). English as an International Language: Perspectives and Pedagogical Issues. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Swan, M. (2005). “Legislation by hypothesis: The case of task-based instruction”. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 376–401.

Xiqin, L. (2004). Authenticity and TBLT activity design. Journal of Teaching English in China, 5, pp. 81-84.

Xinmin Z., & Simon B. (2013) Task-based learning and teaching in China: Secondary school teachers’ beliefs and practices. Sage journals, 18, 205-221

Yi J. & Thanh P. (2018): Implementing task-based language teaching (TBLT) to teach grammar in English classes in China: using design-based research to explore challenges and strategies, Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, DOI:10.1080/17501229.2018.1545021

Yuying L., Freda M. & Angela C. (2018) Investigating EFL teachers’ perceptions of task-based language teaching in higher education in China, The Language Learning Journal, DOI: 10.1080/09571736.2018.1465110

Zhang, Y. F., & Hu, G. W. (2010). Between intended and enacted curricula: Three teachers and a mandated curricular reform in mainland China. In K. Menken (Ed.). Negotiating language policies in schools: Educators as policymakers. pp. 123–140.

Ziwen. L. (2002). The brief introduction to task-based English teaching. Journal of Educational Studies, 6, pp. 26-31.