1

A FRAMEWORK FOR THE USE OF ICT

IN THE EFL CLASS

Pablo Paredes Stecher

Licenciado en Educación con Mención en Inglés y Pedagogía en Inglés

Universidad Metropolitana de Ciencias de la Educación

Santiago, Chile.

ABSTRACT

In the last 30 years, the advent of new technological platforms of information and communication

has brought more powerful and improved tools to the service of education. Although it has been proven

that the use of Information Communication Technologies (ICT) brings relevant advantages to education,

several problems arise when a teacher faces the use of these technologies in the classroom. This paper

proposes a framework for the use of ICT in the teaching-learning process of English as a Foreign Language

(EFL), suggesting the Task Based Language Teaching (TBLT) approach as the methodology used for the

mentioned purpose in a Cooperative Learning (CL) environment.

2

INDEX

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 3

Chapter 1. Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................... 4

1.1 ICT Tools .................................................................................................................................... 4

1.1.1 Definition of ICT Tools ........................................................................................................ 4

1.1.2 Benefits in Education.......................................................................................................... 4

1.2 Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning Overview ........................................................... 5

1.2.1 Definition of Task ............................................................................................................... 6

1.2.2 Tasks and Exercises ............................................................................................................ 8

1.2.3 Form and Meaning when Sequencing Tasks. ..................................................................... 9

1.2.4 Sequencing Tasks ............................................................................................................. 12

1.3 Collaborative Learning Overview ............................................................................................ 13

1.3.1 Elements of Cooperative Learning. .................................................................................. 14

References ......................................................................................................................................... 18

3

INTRODUCTION

Over the last fifty years, technology has been changing extremely fast. Since the spread of

computers in the 1980's, Information Communication Technology ICT has brought more powerful and

improved tools to the service of education. Unfortunately, the use of technology in education is a step

backwards when we compared it with other fields of knowledge where the use of these tools has brought

significant advances.

Several problems arise when an EFL teacher faces the use technology in the teaching-learning

process. Methodology, teaching techniques, technology skills are among the most prominent. The scope of

this proposal has been limited to the methodology needed to utilize ICT tools. As a first approach to the

problem, the attention has been focused on Task Based Language Teaching (TBLT) as a methodology which

provides an environment for communication and active use of technologies by the students. Additionally,

Cooperative Learning (CL) is proposed as a complementary methodology to develop affective-social skills in

a technological environment of mutual collaboration.

4

CHAPTER 1. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

1.1 ICT TOOLS

1.1.1 DEFINITION OF ICT TOOLS

ICT is the acronym for Information and Communication Technologies. These technologies are

described as a “diverse set of technological tools and resources used to communicate, and to create,

disseminate, store, and manage information”(1).

Actually, all of these technological tools and resources are managed either electronically in the

analogue domain or digitally in the virtual domain. The former domain, where we can find the television and

the radio, was the predominant one in twentieth century. The later was brought by the application of

computers to handle text, pictures, sound and video and it is becoming the predominant one in the twenty

first century given the vast advantages that it presents.

1.1.2 BENEFITS IN EDUCATION

The quality of education can be improved by the use of ICTs in numerous aspects. Some of these

aspects are: making students become involved in their own learning process, making the acquisition of basic

skills easier, and increasing teacher training (2). What is more, when ICTs are used properly, they convert

educational environments from teacher-centred into learner-centred (3).

1.1.2.1 MAKING STUDENTS BECOME INVOLVED IN THEIR OWN LEARNING PROCESS

The combination of video, sound and written text offers interesting and genuine context that

involves students in their own learning processes. Movies with subtitles likewise make use of the features

mentioned above, inducing the students to watch and pay attention to the given lesson (4).

1 Blurton, Craig. New Directions of ICT - Use in Education. Hong Kong Learning Without Frontiers,

UNESCO 1999. Abstract. 2 Haddad, Wadi D., and Sonia Jurich. “ICT for Education: Potential and Potency”, Technologies for

Education: Potentials, Parameters, and Prospects. Haddad, W. & Drexler, A. (eds), Washington DC: Academy for Educational Development: UNESCO, 2002. p. 34.

3 Tinio, Victoria L. ICT in Education. © UNDP-APDIP, e-ASEAN Task Force, 2003. p.7. 4 Ibid., p.9.

5

1.1.2.2 MAKING THE ACQUISITION OF BASIC SKILLS EASIER

Using ICTs to drill and practice assist the acquisition of essential knowledge and skills which are the

basis of creativity and higher order thinking skills (5). Children's arts and crafts shows, such as “Mister

Maker”, use reinforcement and repetition to teach colours, shapes and how to cut and paste.

Furthermore, the use of computers has three advantages when applying drilling and practicing

strategies. These advantages are “large memory, speed, and the capacity to repeat the same task an infinite

number of times without reducing performance” (6).

1.1.2.3 CONVERTING ENVIRONMENTS FROM TEACHER-CENTRED INTO LEARNER-

CENTRED

When education supported by ICTs is planned and put into operation appropriately, students can

obtain the concepts and skills that will allow them to access enduring learning. Moreover, if ICTs, “especially

computers and Internet technologies” (7), are utilized properly, new methods of teaching and learning are

facilitated. These new methods, supported by constructivist theories, represent a radical change from a

pedagogy characterized by rote learning and memorization to one where the students obtain meaningful

learning (8).

1.2 TASK-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING AND LEARNING OVERVIEW

A lot has been written about the TBLT in the last three decades. Although scholars define this

approach from different points of view and take various positions, all of them coincide on a solid basis of

principles. This section focuses on the principles which, in opinion of the author, give a path to make use of

technology in the teaching-learning process so as to obtain enduring learning for students. This overview of

TBLT principles is illustrative and it is not to any degree exhaustive.

In recent years, TBLT has emerged in the TEFL and TESL fields gaining popularity among educators.

In pedagogic terms, David Nunan (9) enumerates some teaching-learning practices and principles that are

strengthened by TBLT.

“An emphasis on learning to communicate through interaction in the target language”.

“The introduction of authentic texts into the learning situation”.

5 Ibid., p.7.

6 Haddad, W., and S. Jurich. Op.Cit., p.35.

7 Tinio, V. Op.cit., p.9.

8 Ibid.

9 Nunan, David. Task-Based Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2004. p.1.

6

“The provision of opportunities for learners to focus, not only on language, but also on the learning

process itself”.

“An enhancement of the learners own personal experiences as important contributing elements to

classroom learning”.

“The linking of classroom language learning with language use outside the classroom” (10

).

These practices and principles are clearly connected to some of the benefits of ICT in education

mentioned above. For example, TBLT framework for teaching and learning supports the students’

involvement in the learning process and the conversion of educational environments into learner-centred.

Moreover, both “the provision of opportunities for learners to focus, not only on language but also on the

learning process itself” (11

) and “the linking of classroom language learning with language use outside the

classroom” (12

) promote the students’ involvement in the learning process giving them strategies to carry

learning through autonomously. As an example, we have the mixed strategy of guessing and checking the

meaning of unknown words and phrases from a text using the context, which facilitates comprehension in

any scenario.

In addition to this, the “enhancement of the learners own personal experiences as important

contributing elements to classroom learning”(13

) and the “emphasis on learning to communicate through

interaction in the target language”(14

) convert educational environments from teacher-centred into learner-

centred. This change of centre breaks the paradigm where learners were mere passive receptors of the

knowledge transferred by the teacher. In a learner-centred environment, different learning styles take place

and students are allowed to advance at their own pace. What is more, the individualities of each learner are

in favour with enduring learning.

1.2.1 DEFINITION OF TASK

By common knowledge, a notion of task conveys different meanings. In a definition given by Long,

we find that a task is “…a piece of work undertaken for oneself or for others, freely or for some reward…

[By+ ‘task’ is meant the hundred and one things people do in everyday life, at work, at play and in between”

(15

). In this respect, Nunan states that the tasks covered by this definition may not engage use of language at

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid.

12 Ibid.

13 Ibid.

14 Ibid.

15 Long, Michel .H. “A Role for Instruction in Second Language Acquisition: Task-Based Language

Training”. 1985 Modelling and Assessing Second Language Acquisition K. Hyltenstam and M. Pienemann (Eds.). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1985. p. 89.

7

all and “…in contrast with most classroom language exercises, [these] tasks have a non-linguistic outcome”

(16

).

Addressing the need of a definition of task from a teaching-learning language point of view, Rod

Ellis and David Nunan give complementary definitions of task. In the words of Ellis a task is:

“…a workplan that requires learners to process language pragmatically in order to achieve an

outcome that can be evaluated in terms of whether the correct or appropriate propositional content has

been conveyed. To this end, it requires them to give primary attention to meaning and to make use of their

own linguistic resources, although the design of the task may predispose them to choose particular forms. A

task is intended to result in language use that bears a resemblance, direct or indirect, to the way language is

used in the real world. Like other language activities, a task can engage productive or receptive, and oral or

written skills and also various cognitive processes” (17

).

On the other hand, Nunan defines a pedagogical task in the following way:

“…a pedagogical task is a piece of classroom work that involves learners in comprehending,

manipulating, producing or interacting in the target language while their attention is focused on mobilizing

their grammatical knowledge in order to express meaning, and in which the intention is to convey meaning

rather than to manipulate form. The task should also have a sense of completeness, being able to stand

alone as a communicative act in its own right with a beginning, a middle and an end” (18

).

Apart from the engagement of receptive and productive skills, both Ellis and Nunan also coincide in

the notion that pedagogic tasks entail “communicative language use in which the user’s attention is focused

on meaning rather than grammatical form” (19

). Nunan’s definition alludes to the effective use of

grammatical knowledge to convey meaning, emphasizing “…the fact that meaning and form are highly

interrelated, and that grammar exists to enable the language user to express different communicative

meanings” (20

).

In this respect, Estaire and Zanón add a distinction between ‘communication tasks’ and ‘enabling

tasks’. In the former “the ‘learner’s attention is focused on meaning rather than form” (21

). In the later “the

16 Nunan, D. Op.Cit., p.2

17 Ellis, Rod. Task Based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford UP 2003. p.16.

18 Nunan, D. Op.Cit., p.4

19 Ibid.

20 Ibid.

21 Estaire, Sheila, and Javier Zanón. Planning Classwork: a Task Based Approach. Oxford:

Heinemann, 1994. pp. 13-21

8

main focus is on linguistic aspects (grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, function, and discourse)” (22

).

Although Estaire and Zanón classified these activities ‘focused on linguistic aspects’ as ‘enabling tasks’, Ellis

(23

), among others, classified this activities as exercises some years later.

1.2.2 TASKS AND EXERCISES

A clear difference between task and exercises has been placed by some authors in TBLT. Although

their definitions cover a wide spectrum, they all coincide in the notion that exercises focus on specific

features of language, whereas ‘tasks’ focus on the transmission of a message, making use of language as a

whole system. As examples of exercises we have the pronunciation of some verb endings or the practice of

the pattern of a specific grammatical item.

First, Bygate makes a distinction where exercises are defined as “activities which practise parts of a

skill, a new sub-skill, a new piece of knowledge” (24

). At the same time, tasks are defined as “activities which

practise the whole integrated skill in some way” (25

).

Second, a less broad definition is given by Candlin who describes ‘exercises’ as “serving as

sequenceable preliminaries to, or supporters, of tasks” (26

). Alternatively, ‘tasks’ are described as activities

which “practise the integrated use of language, acquire language development strategies and use language

meaningfully and creatively” (27

).

Finally, Ellis places the difference between ‘tasks’ and ‘exercises’ based on the focus of the activity

which may be meaning or form. He defines ‘tasks’ as “activities that call for primarily meaning focused

language use” (28

) and ‘exercises’ as activities “that call for primarily form focused language use” (29

).

22 Ibid.

23 Ellis, Rod. Op. Cit.

24 Bygate, Martin. “Effects of Task Repetition on the Structure and Control of Oral Interaction.”

Researching Pedagogic Tasks, Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing. M. Bygate, P. Skehan, M. Swain (Eds.). Harlow: Longman. 2001. p. 176.

25 Ibid.

26 Candlin, Chris. “Afterword, Taking the Curriculum to Task”. Researching Pedagogic Tasks, Second

Language Learning, Teaching and Testing. M. Bygate, P. Skehan, M. Swain (Eds.). Harlow: Longman. 2001. p.235

27 Ibid.

28 Ellis, Rod. Op. Cit., p. 3.

29 Ibid.

9

Moreover, Ellis highlights the notion that “the overall purpose of tasks is the same as exercises, learning a

language- the difference lying in the means by which this purpose is to be achieved” (30

).

1.2.3 FORM AND MEANING WHEN SEQUENCING TASKS.

The roles of ‘meaning’ and ‘form’ that characterize TBLT may be found in the definitions of task

given by Nunan and Ellis. Even though Ellis leaves ‘form’ aside, stating that a task “…requires them to give

primary attention to meaning…”(31

), Nunan states that when a task is carried out, the attention of the

performers “…is focused on mobilizing their grammatical knowledge in order to express meaning, and in

which the intention is to convey meaning rather than to manipulate form”(32

). Furthermore, Nunan adds

that “…meaning and form are highly interrelated, and that grammar exists to enable the language user to

express different communicative meanings” (33

).

Raising the issue of sequencing tasks to teach language and the role of form in this process, the

distinction of ‘synthetic’ and ‘analytical’ approaches to syllabus design placed by David Wilkins play a

relevant role (34

). According to his suggestion, all syllabi may be classified in one of these categories. Wilkins

establishes that in ‘synthetic approaches’ “[d]ifferent parts of the language are taught separately and step

by step so that acquisition is a process of gradual accumulation of parts until the whole structure of

language has been built up” (35

). Teaching approaches such as the Silent Way, audioligualism and grammar

translation fit this category thoroughly. In Nunan’s view, these approaches reproduce the common-sense

belief that the instructor must simplify the learning endeavour for the student, dividing the content into

parts with the purpose of present each part isolatedly and step by step (36

).

Facing the problem of rote learning brought by the synthetic approaches, Wilkins proposes the

option of ‘analytical’ approaches in his book Notional Syllabuses (37

). In ‘analytical’ approaches, while

language is introduced in holistic ‘chunks’, the learner is required to make the analysis work, dividing

language into parts. The most noticeable quality of analytic approaches is that “*t+hey are organized in terms

of the purposes for which people are learning languages and the kinds of language performance that are

necessary to meet those purposes” (38

).

30 Ibid.

31 Ellis, Rod. Op. Cit., p. 16.

32 Nunan, D. Op.Cit.

33 Ibid.

34 Wilkins, David. Notional Syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1976.

35 Ibid., p. 2

36 Nunan, David. “Task-Based Language Teaching in the Asia Context: Defining ‘Task’ ”. The Asian

EFL Journal. 8.3 (2006): pp. 12-13. 37

Wilkins, David. Op.cit. 38

Ibid., p 13.

10

Based on the classification into the superordinate categories of synthetic and analytical syllabi

made by Wilkins (39

), Long (40

) proposes both the use of tasks as basic units of a language course syllabus and

three types of syllabi in which the focus of these ‘tasks’ moves from meaning to form. These types of syllabi

are constituted by tasks ‘focused on meaning’, tasks ‘focused on form’ and tasks ‘focused on

formS*Synthetic+’. Where the syllabus based on tasks ‘focused on formS’ is in essence synthetic, the syllabi

built around tasks ‘focused on meaning’ and tasks ‘focused on form’ are analytical.

1.2.3.1 TASK ‘FOCUSED ON MEANING’

According to Long and Crookes(41

), when a task of this type is performed, no grammatical rules are

presented and learners are exposed to chunks of communicative L2 which progress gradually in complexity.

In this type of analytic syllabus, the learner might or might not notice or induce language patterns or

grammatical rules. There should be no discussion of grammatical rules, given that the development of inner

structures of language is understood as a natural process by the learner.

1.2.3.2 TASK ‘FOCUSED ON FORM’

A second alternative given by Long and Crookes (42

) to focus tasks is form. As Rebecca Oxford

reaffirms, the tasks are immersed in meaningful and communicative contexts. In these tasks learners face

‘communicative language problems’ (breakdowns) and are encouraged to find a solution for them (43

). In

Long’s opinion, a focus on form takes place when the attention of learner is moved from meaning to form

sporadically while a communication breakdown takes place (44

). Rebecca Oxford states that some

techniques such as “recasts” are applied to accomplish this objective, where “the instructor gives a

corrective reformulation of the learner’s incorrect production or understanding” (45

). Given the fact that

learners make analysis of language and draw relationships and rules from the contrast of the original and

the correct form in context, ‘tasks focused on form’ constitute an analytic approach (46

). In summary, “three

major components define a focus on form . . . [:] (a) can be generated by the teacher or the learner(s), (b) it

39 Wilkins, David. Op.cit.

40 Long, Michel .H. “Input and Second Language Acquisition Theory”. Input in Second Language

Acquisition, S. Gass and Madden. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1985. 41 Long, Michel .H, and Graham Crookes. “Three Approaches to Task-Based Syllabus Design”. TESOL

Quarterly. 26.1 (1992). P. 28. 42 Ibid. 43 Oxford, Rebecca. 2006, “Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning: An Overview”. The Asian

EFL Journal. 8.3 (2006): p.98. 44 Long, Michel .H. “Input and Second Language Acquisition Theory”. Op.cit. 45 Oxford, Rebecca. Op.cit. p. 98. 46 Wilkins, David. Op.cit.

11

is generally incidental (occasional shift of attention) and (c) it is contingent on learners’ needs (triggered by

perceived problems)” (47

).

However Long stated that tasks ‘focused on form’ have a sporadic movement from meaning to

form when a communication breakdown takes place (48

), Salaberry (49

) introduced a type of task where

forms are preselected. In this alternative, the focus on form is preceded by a focus on meaning and the

objective of the task “is to focus on preselected forms related to meaning-oriented tasks” (50

). In this

respect, Skehan recommends the selection of an array of structures using the principle of “usefulness” in the

place of “necessity” (51

).

1.2.3.3 TASK ‘FOCUSED ON FORMS’

Tasks ‘focused on formS’ are characterized by the consecutive presentation of isolated and

preselected forms, expecting that learners will understand and acquire them prior to make use of them in a

communicative situation (52

). Given that learners must combine separate features of language by

themselves, this is a synthetic syllabus approach to language teaching (53

). In Rebecca Oxford’s view,

“*l+essons tend to be dull, sometimes arcane, and not oriented toward communication, as though L2

learning could be reduced to memorizing accumulated, small items and mechanistically applying myriad

rules.” (54

).

These tasks ‘focused on FormS’ keep a close resemblance to the Presentation/Practice/Production

model. In this approach, learning is believed to be a linear progression of “understanding, internalizing, and

activating knowledge” (55

), where the target “forms are presented, analyzed and practiced before they

are functionally needed in a contextualized communicative situation” (56

). Although PPP is successful to

meet some isolated grammatical or functional objectives, such as ‘practicing the past simple’ or ‘telling the

time’, “more sophisticated models are required…for more contextualized and integrated objectives” (57

) .

47 Salaberry, Rafael. “Task-Sequencing in L2 Acquisition” Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education. 6.1 (2001): p. 105.

48 Long, Michel. Op.cit.

49 Salaberry, Rafael. Op.cit., p.104.

50 Oxford, Rebecca. Op.cit. p. 99.

51 Skehan, Peter. “Second Language Acquisition Research and Task-Based Instruction”. Challenge

and Change in Language Teaching. J. Willis and D. Willis (Eds.). Oxford: Heinemann. 1996. 52

Oxford, Rebecca. Op.cit. 53

Wilkins, David. Op.cit. 54

Oxford, Rebecca. Op.cit. 55

Nunan, David. and Clarice Lamb. The Self-Directed Teacher: Managing the Learning Process. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1998. p. 47.

56 Salaberry, Rafael. Op.cit., p. 104.

57 Nunan, David. and Clarice Lamb. Op.cit.

12

1.2.4 SEQUENCING TASKS

In the TBLT field, researchers have not yet reached an agreement on how to sequence task and the

elements that compose them (58

). Prabhu (59

), Skehan (60

) and Willis (61

), among others, have suggested

various designs which reproduce the progression of phases within a lesson. Despite the differences, they all

share the notion of the existence of three main phases, ‘pre-task’, ‘during task’ and ‘post-task’ (62

).

Alternatively, based on the concept of the three I’s (Illustration, Interaction, and Induction)

suggested by McCarthy (63

), Salaberry (64

) proposes a pedagogical sequence of four stages. Within his

framework, Salaberry also establishes that learners are led to: “(1) communicate with limited resources; (2)

become aware of apparent limitations in their knowledge about linguistic structures that are necessary to

convey the message appropriately and accurately, and (3) look for alternatives to overcome such

limitations” (65

). In addition, he argues that “*t+his sequence focuses students’ attention on the structure of

the language by demonstrating that each component of language as a whole contributes to the meaning

that makes up any type of interaction” (66

).

The pedagogical sequence offered by Salaberry covers both the teacher and the learner’s roles,

placing learners in an active position in the process as ‘stakeholders’. From the learner’s point of view, the

stages are involvement, inquiry, induction and incorporation. The equivalent steps for the teacher are

introduction of the topic, illustration, implementation, and integration. The connection of stages for

teachers and learners’ processes is described in the following table (67

):

58 Oxford, Rebecca. Op.cit., p. 109.

59 Prabhu, N.S. Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1987.

60 Skehan, Peter. “A Framework for the Implementation of Task-Based Instruction”.

Applied Linguistics. 17.1 (1996) 61

Willis, Dave, and Jane Willis. “Consciousness-Raising Activities in the Language Classroom”. Challenge and Change in Language Teaching. J. Willis and D. Willis (Eds.). Oxford: Heinemann, 1996.

62 Ellis, Rod. “The Methodology of Task-Based Teaching”. The Asian EFL Journal. 8.3 (2006): pp. 19-

20. 63

McCarthy, Michael. Spoken Language and Applied Linguistics. New York: Cambridge UP, 1998. p.67. 64

Salaberry, Rafael. Op.cit., pp. 107-108. 65

Salaberry, Rafael. Op.cit., abstract. 66

Salaberry, Rafael. Op.cit., p.108. 67

Summarized from Salaberry 2001, p.108.

13

1.3 COLLABORATIVE LEARNING OVERVIEW

Johnson and Johnson state that the interaction among students in a class follows three noticeable

patterns when the learning process takes place (68

). First, each student can try to be the most successful

competing against the others to be the ‘best’. Second, they can strive individualistically in direction to a

learning objective without paying attention to the success of the others. Third, they can cooperate with each

other and work together to reach a learning objective. Although ‘competition’ and ‘individualistic effort’ are

the prevailing interaction patterns in most classrooms, ‘cooperative learning’ has shown the higher rates of

learning achievement in more than 900 research studies throughout the 20th

century (69

).

In Johnson and Johnson’s view (70

), cooperative learning is characterized by a clearly structured

work made by the students in groups. This structure, among other elements, provides a common accepted

goal where students are rewarded by their common efforts, a sense of ‘positive interdependence’ and a

sense of ‘personal accountability’ where the group succeed or fail together. The work in groups must be

structured; otherwise their learning outcomes will be only compared to the results of individualistic or

competitive efforts, showing no improvements.

68 Johnson, David W., and Roger T. Johnson. “An Overview of Cooperative Learning”. Creativity and

Collaborative Learning; J. Thousand, A. Villa and A. Nevin (Eds), Brookes Press, Baltimore, 1994 69

Johnson, David W., Roger T. Johnson, and Mary Beth Stanne. “Cooperative Learning Methods: A Meta-Analysis”. N.p. May 2000. Web. 70

Johnson, David W., and Roger T. Johnson. Op.cit.

14

1.3.1 ELEMENTS OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING.

Johnson and Johnson (71

) introduce some definite conditions that must be present to have students

achieve learning objectives in the way that it is expected by the use of cooperative learning. The mentioned

conditions are:

“Clearly perceived positive interdependence”.

“Considerable promotive (face-to-face) interaction”.

“Clearly perceived individual accountability and personal responsibility to achieve the group’s

goals”.

“Frequent use of the relevant interpersonal and small group skills”.

“Frequent and regular group processing of current functioning to improve the group’s future

effectiveness” (72

).

The relationships among cooperative elements introduced by Johnson and Johnson (73

) are

summarized in the following map:

1.3.1.1 POSITIVE INTERDEPENDENCE

The first condition to set an effective cooperative lesson is that the students perceive that the

success of the group depends on each one of its members. In cooperative circumstances, students have a

dual responsibility where they ought to learn the given material and make certain that every member of the

group learns the given material. Positive interdependence encourages the existence of the notion that (74

):

71 Johnson, David W., and Roger T. Johnson. Op.cit.

72 Ibid.

73 Ibid.

74 Ibid.

15

“Each group member’s efforts are required and indispensable for group success (i.e., there can be

no ‘free riders’).”

“Each group member has unique contribution to make to the joint effort because of his or her

resources and/or role and task responsibilities” (75

).

From Johnson and Johnson’s (76

) point of view, some techniques can be used to structure positive

interdependence in a learning group. These techniques are ‘positive goal interdependence’, ‘positive

reward-celebrate interdependence’, ‘positive resource interdependence’ and ‘positive role

interdependence’.

2.3.1.1.1 POSITIVE GOAL INTERDEPENDENCE

The group is given a reason for its existence as a common objective is established. The common

goal creates the sense that the success of the group depends on the efforts of all of the members to

complete the assigned task or reach the objective. Always, the group goal is integrated in the lesson’s

objectives (77

).

2.3.1.1.2 POSITIVE REWARD-CELEBRATE INTERDEPENDENCE

All the members of the group are given the same reward when the group reaches the objective. As

a complement to goal interdependence, teachers provided students with: “1) a group grade for the overall

production of their group, 2) an individual grade resulting from the test, and 3) bonus points if all members

of the group achieve the criterion of the test” (78

). The quality of cooperation is improved by habitual

celebrations of the group hard work and success.

2.3.1.1.3 POSITIVE RESOURCE INTERDEPENDENCE

The required resources to complete the task are in possession of different members of the group.

The cooperative association is emphasize by the provision of “limited resources that must be shared” (79

)

and combined by the students.

75 Ibid.

76 Ibid.

77 Ibid.

78 Ibid.

79 Ibid.

16

2.3.1.1.4 POSITIVE ROLE INTERDEPENDENCE

‘Complementary’ and ‘interconnected’ roles are given to the members of the group. These roles are

planned in anticipation of the necessary responsibilities for the completion of the collective task. An

example of this technique is the Jigsaw procedure (80

).

1.3.1.2 FACE-TO-FACE PROMOTIVE INTERACTION

Promotive interaction is a product of positive interdependence. Promotive interaction is defined as

“individuals encouraging and facilitating each other’s efforts to achieve, complete a task, and produce in

order to reach the group’s goal” (81

). A behaviour that exemplifies promotive interaction is the mutual

provision of efficient and effective support by individuals within a group.

1.3.1.3 INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTABILITY / PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY

Individual accountability is the third indispensable element of cooperative learning. It is

characterized by the assessment of the performance of each member of the group. Once the assessment’s

feedback is given to each student and the group, individuals are held accountable for providing their ‘fair

share’ to the group’s achievement by their group mates. Some techniques to structure individual

accountability are (82

):

“Keeping the size of the group small. The smaller the size of the group, the greater the individual

accountability may be.”

“Giving an individual test to each student.”

“Randomly examining students orally by calling on one student to present his or her group’s work

to the teacher or to the entire class.”

“Observing each group and recording the frequency with which each member contributes to the

group’s work.”

“Assigning one student in each group the role of checker. The checker asks other group members to

explain the reasoning and rationale underlying group answers”.

“Having students teach what they learned to someone else. When all the students do this, it is

called simultaneous explaining.” (83

)

1.3.1.4 INTERPERSONAL AND SMALL-GROUP SKILLS

80 Ibid.

81 Ibid.

82 Ibid.

83 Ibid.

17

The suitable use of interpersonal and small-group skill is the fourth indispensable element of

cooperative learning. Given that social skills are not innate, their learning is necessary for effective

collaboration. With the intention of attaining common objectives, learners must: “1) get to know and trust

each other, 2) communicate accurately and unambiguously, 3) accept and support each other, and 4)

resolve conflict constructively” (84

).

1.3.1.5 GROUP PROCESSING

The fifth indispensable element of cooperative learning is group processing which Johnson and

Johnson define as “reflecting on a group session to: 1) describe what member actions were helpful and

unhelpful, and 2) make decisions about what actions to continue or change” (85

). As a result of this process,

the group enhances and makes clear the efficacy of the members in their contribution to achieve the

common goals by means of collaborative efforts.

The group processing may be done at two levels, small groups and the entire class. With the

purpose of guaranteeing that small-group processing happens within a lesson, teachers assign a period of

time at the end of the lesson where the learning groups reflect on how effective was the work of the

members of that group. This analysis: “1) enables learning groups to focus on maintaining good working

relationships among members, 2) facilitates the learning of cooperative skills, 3) ensures that members

receive feedback on their participation, 4) ensures that students think on the metacognitive as well as the

cognitive level, and 5) provides the means to celebrate the success of the group and reinforce the positive

behaviours of group members” (86

). A relevant feature of both whole-class and small-group processing is

group and class celebrations.

84 Ibid.

85 Ibid.

86 Ibid.

18

REFERENCES

Blurton, Craig. “New Directions of ICT - Use in Education”. Hong Kong Learning Without Frontiers, UNESCO 1999. Web. http://www.unesco.org/education/educprog/lwf/dl/edict.pdf 28 June 2010.

Bygate, Martin. “Effects of Task Repetition on the Structure and Control of Oral Interaction.” Researching Pedagogic Tasks, Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing. M. Bygate, P. Skehan, M. Swain (Eds.). Harlow: Longman. 2001. (pp. 23-48). Print.

Candlin, Chris. “Afterword, Taking the Curriculum to Task”. Researching Pedagogic Tasks, Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing. M. Bygate, P. Skehan, M. Swain (Eds.). Harlow: Longman. 2001. (pp. 229-43). Print. Ellis, Rod. Task Based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford UP 2003. Print.

Ellis, Rod. “The Methodology of Task-Based Teaching”. The Asian EFL Journal. 8.3 (2006): pp. 19-45. Print.

Estaire, Sheila, and Javier Zanón. Planning Classwork: a Task Based Approach. Oxford: Heinemann, 1994. Print. Johnson, David W., and Roger T. Johnson. “An Overview of Cooperative Learning”. Creativity and Collaborative Learning; J. Thousand, A. Villa and A. Nevin (Eds), Brookes Press, Baltimore, 1994. Print.

Johnson, David W., Roger T. Johnson, and Mary Beth Stanne. “Cooperative Learning Methods: A Meta-Analysis”. N.p. May 2000. Web. http://www.tablelearning.com/uploads/File/EXHIBIT-B.pdf 18 November 2010.

Haddad, Wadi D., and Sonia Jurich. “ICT for Education: Potential and Potency”, Technologies for Education: Potentials, Parameters, and Prospects. Haddad, W. & Drexler, A. (eds), Washington DC: Academy for Educational Development: UNESCO, 2002. pp. 34-37. Print.

Long, Michel .H. “A Role for Instruction in Second Language Acquisition: Task-Based Language Training”. Modelling and Assessing Second Language Acquisition K. Hyltenstam and M. Pienemann (Eds.). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1985. pp. 77-99. Print.

Long, Michel .H. “Input and Second Language Acquisition Theory”. Input in Second Language Acquisition, S. Gass and Madden. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1985. Print.

Long, Michel .H, and Graham Crookes. “Three Approaches to Task-Based Syllabus Design”. TESOL Quarterly. 26.1 (1992). pp. 27-56. Print.

McCarthy, Michael. Spoken Language and Applied Linguistics. New York: Cambridge UP, 1998. Print.

Nunan, David. and Clarice Lamb. The Self-Directed Teacher: Managing the Learning Process. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1998. Print.

Nunan, David. Task-Based Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2004. Print.

Nunan, David. “Task-Based Language Teaching in the Asia Context: Defining ‘Task’ ”. The Asian EFL Journal. 8.3 (2006): pp. 12-18. Print.

19

Oxford, Rebecca. 2006, “Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning: An Overview”. The Asian EFL Journal. 8.3 (2006): pp. 94-121. Print.

Prabhu, N.S. Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1987. Print. Salaberry, Rafael. “Task-Sequencing in L2 Acquisition” Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education. 6.1 (2001): pp. 101-112. Print.

Skehan, Peter. “Second Language Acquisition Research and Task-Based Instruction”. Challenge and Change in Language Teaching. J. Willis and D. Willis (Eds.). Oxford: Heinemann. 1996. pp. 17-30. Print.

Skehan, Peter. “A Framework for the Implementation of Task-Based Instruction”. Applied Linguistics. 17.1 (1996): pp. 38-62. Print.

Tinio, Victoria L. “ICT in Education”. © UNDP-APDIP, e-ASEAN Task Force, 2003. Web. www.apdip.net/publications/iespprimers/ICTinEducation.pdf 28 June 2010.

Willis, Dave, and Jane Willis. “Consciousness-Raising Activities in the Language Classroom”. Challenge and Change in Language Teaching. J. Willis and D. Willis (Eds.). Oxford: Heinemann, 1996. pp. 63-76. Print.

Wilkins, David. Notional Syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1976. Print.