Learner-Centered Tasks in the Foreign Language Classroom

Learner-Centered Tasks in the Foreign Language Classroom

Chihiro Kinoshita Thomson National University of Singapore

ABSTRACT The articlejkst discusses communicative language teaching and self-directed learning, then introduces an analytical framework for designing a task, using Nunan ’s framework. This is followed by a case study done in the Department of Japanese Studies at the National University of Singapore involving 220 first-year Japanese language students. The case study is a description and analysis of a task which is communicatively based, learner- centered and which promotes self-directed learning. Then some suggestions are made for course and task designers.

Introduction Over the last decade, there has been a strong

movement away from the highly structured, teacher-oriented, grammar-based teaching of second or foreign languages in favor of a task- oriented, communicatively based, learner- centered teaching. This is part of the communicative language teaching movement which bases instruction on learners’ communicative needs. It can also be considered a part of the self- directed learning movement which regards learners as independent individuals who select, design, and assess their own learning experiences.

This article describes a specific task that was used in the beginning-level Japanese language course at the National University of Singapore (NUS). The article first discusses communicative language teaching and self-directed learning, then introduces an analytical framework for designing a task, using Nunan’s

Chihiro Kinoshita Thomson (Ed. D. Arizona State Univer- sity) is Lecturer of Japanese Studies of National University of Singapore.

framework (9). After introducing the framework, the article briefly provides some background information about the first-year Japanese course offered by the Department of Japanese Studies, NUS, and its course structure. Following the background information, the article turns to the case study and in conclusion, makes suggestions on what could be done to design communicatively based, learnercentered tasks that promote self-directed learning.

Communicative Language Teaching Communicative language teaching has

various implementations. It ranges from incorporating communicative drills into basically grammar-based teaching and using authentic materials in the classroom, to the learner’s in- creased involvement in course design, to a learner-centered process-oriented style of teaching (Nunan, 8; Nunan, 9; Savignon & Berns, 11 .) This article will address the learner- centered-process-oriented implementation.

Communicative language teaching emerged out of a dissatisfaction with so-called “traditional teaching,” which based language instruction on what should be taught and how it should be taught from the viewpoint of the teacher. Under Structuralism the teacher decided what structures were to be drilled, in what order, and how. Under Situationalism, the teacher decided what situations were to be dealt with, with what content, and in what sequence. The “traditional teaching,” in other words, was teacher- centered teaching.

Communicative language teaching, on the other hand, turns its focus to the language users or language learners. Hata states that as the

Foreign Language Annals, 25, No. 6. 1992 523

524 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS - DECEMBER 1992

center of foreign language teaching method- ologies shifted from Audiolingualism to communicative teaching, the center of foreign language teaching concerns moved from the teacher to the learner (3, p.82).

Communicative language teaching is designed for the learners to bz able to have meaningful communication in and out of the classroom in the most authentic manner and likely situation possible. To determine what is to be taught in such a design, learner input is imperative. The learners somehow have to supply information on their needs as current and future language users. These learner needs should be of instructional concern not only at the initial stage of course design, but throughout the entire course of communicative language teaching, if it is to be truly learner-centered.

As the focus of the teaching shifts from the teacher to the learners, the learners have to assume a new role under the language teaching. They are no longer told to do exactly as the teacher says. They are not simply repeating or memorizing. They are required to use all their language and social skills, their life experience and other resources to participate in meaningful communication.

Not all learners are ready for this new role. Nunan states:

This can sometimes cause problems if you are teaching learners who have rather set ideas about language and learning, par- ticularly if these differ greatly from your own. (9, p.86) It is more likely than not that the learners have

a different perception of language and learning from yours. The Eltis & Low study and the Alcorso & Kalantzis study, both done in 1985, and the Nunan study; all cited in Nunan (8), reveal clear mismatches between learners’ and teachers’ views of language learning. The chances are that you could have traditionally minded learners preferring grammar exercises over communicative tasks in your communicatively designed courses.

Then, shall we only plan tasks that the learners prefer, namely, grammar exercises, structured class discussion, drill and repetition work and so on? Our answer is no. If com-

municative competence is the goal of language learning, the learners must take part in meaningful communicative interactions (Canale & Swain, 1). That is, in order to deliver communicative language teaching effectively, we must be concerned with two major objectives: (1) to teach the language; and (2) to teach learning skills.

Self-Directed Learning The above-mentioned second objective, to

teach learning skills, should be a legitimate objective in any educational setting on any subject matter. Knowles explains why:

The simple truth is that we are entering in- to a strange new world in which rapid change will be the only stable character- istic. And this simple truth has several radical implications for education and learning.

For one thing, this implies that it is no longer realistic to define the purpose of education as transmitting what is known. In a world in which the half-life of many facts (and skills) may be ten years or less, half of what a person has acquired at the age of twenty may be obsolete by the time that person is thirty. Thus, the main purpose of education must now be to develop the skills of inquiry. (6, p.15)

In the area of foreign language learning, the learners need to develop the skills of selfdirected learning to maximize the learnercentered communicative learning opportunity. Self-directed or proactive learners, who take initiative in learning, learn more and better, retain what they learn longer and make more active use of what they learn than reactive learners who wait to be taught (Knowles, 6).

Dickinson (2) supports the importance of self- directed learning giving five reasons for the use of self-instruction and the development of learning skills:

1. Practical reasons In some situations, it is impossible for learn-

ers to attend regular classes. For these learners, it is a matter of self-instruction or nothing.

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS - DECEMBER 1992 525

2. Individual differences Self-instruction enables us to cope with dif-

ferences in aptitude, cognitive styles and strategies, and learning strategies.

3. Educational aims Self-instruction facilitates the development

of strategies that seem to characterize the “good” language learner. It also promotes autonomy and fulfils requirements for continu- ing education.

4. Motivation Self-instruction can have a positive effect

on motivation. 5 . Learning how to learn

This reason cuts across several of the others already summarized. Finding out about the learning process, planning learning and then using appropriate and preferred strategies is a basic and important educational objective. (Adopted from Dickinson, 2, pp.18-35)

We should clarify here what we mean by self- directed learners in foreign language learning. The self-directed learners in foreign language learning are (1) those who can set up a favorable climate of learning for themselves by collaborat- ing with peers, instructors, and resource persons; (2) those who can diagnose their own needs realistically; (3) those who can translate learning needs into learning objectives; (4) those who can select and utilize tasks and effective strategies to achieve the objectives; and ( 5 ) those who can assess their own achievement (adopted from Knowles, 5,6,7). The above can be considered as the stages that the learners go through as they conduct their self-directed learning. For self- directed learners, the learning process they go through is at least as important as, and often more important than, the learning outcome.

The traditionally minded learners should in- creasingly benefit from your communicatively designed learner-centered course as they learn the skills of self-directed learning.

Then how shall we teach the skills involved in self-directed learning? We can give a lecture on the skills and we can have the learners read about the skills. The skills are, however, typically most effectively learned when integrated into regular class activities (Oxford & Crookall, 10). This means the tasks and activities we plan need to

address both objectives we stated earlier. That is, the tasks need to teach both language and language learning skills.

Task Analysis Before we discuss tasks further, we would like

to adopt Nunan’s definition of a task as “a piece of classroom work which invotves learners in comprehending, manipulating, producing or in- teracting in the target language while their attention is principally focused on meaning rather than form’’ (9, p.10). In addition, we would like to maintain Nunan’s position that a task must be capable of giving learners “a sense of com- pleteness, being able to stand alone as a communicative act in its own right” (9).

Nunan (9) also provides a practical framework for the analysis of a task. He proposes to analyze a task in terms of its six components: goals, input, activities, teacher role, learner role, and set- tings. Goals are outcome-oriented and in the form of general statements. In other words, they express in a broad manner what the result of a certain experience will be. Input refers to data that the individual has to deal with when perfor- ming a task. Activity refers to the performance of a task on the basis of goals and input. In addition, it entails specific roles for teacher and learner in a particular setting.

To illustrate task analysis in terms of task components, Nunan (9, p.11) provides the following simple example from a communicative situation in which pairs of learners interview each other on their sleeping habits:

Goal: Exchanging personal information

Input: Questionnaire on sleeping habits

Activity: i) Reading questionnaire ii) Asking and answering questions about sleeping habits

‘kacher role: Monitor and facilitator Learner role: Conversation partner Setting: Classroom/pair work.

Description of the Case Study The case study was conducted in the first-year

Japanese language course at the Department of


Japanese Studies, National University of Singapore (NUS) in July-August 1990.

First, let us briefly describe the Japanese language program at NUS. The Japanese language program is a three-year program which can be extended another year if a student is enrolled in the Honor’s Degree program. In the academic year 1990-91, the student enrollment in the entire language program was 560. The goals of the language program are:

1) To foster learners who can communicate well as educated adults with the Japanese in Japanese which is culturally, functionally, and structurally appropriate;

2) To create a positive attitude among the learners toward intercultural communication with the Japanese so that they will play vital roles in developing a stronger relationship between Singapore and Japan;

3) To nurture self-sufficient learners who can continue language study on their own.

The first-year Japanese course is called “Japanese Language and Communication I.” In the year 1990-91 the course had a student enrollment of 220 and it was run by a team of 12 full- time and part-time instructors. Most of the students had no previous knowledge of the Japanese language.

In this course the students receive six hours of instruction per week, a total of approximately 140 hours per academic year. The six hours a week are typically allocated into one hour each of language lab and lecture and four hours of small group tutorials.

The 220 students are divided into 22 tutorial groups, of 10 students each on average. To manage the 22 tutorial groups in one or two days, simultaneous sessions must be held Three or four simultaneous tutorial sessions are held in each time slot.

The course started in the second week of July 1990. Week One was the introductory week, which acquainted students with the course objectives, course structure, course requirements, foreign language learning strategies, the Japanese sound system and the writing system. From Week n o on, one lesson per week on average was taught.

The case in question is on Lesson 3, titled

“Japanese Language Study.” In this lesson the students are to ask and describe things and people around them related to Japanese language study as they manipulate adjectives.

Analysis of the Case Study Task We would like to categorize our case study as

a task involving some activities. In terms of con- ducting the task, there is what may be called the “case study process,” phases of work or activity that the students have to perform and that in- volve the integration of all the language macro- skills.

The task has five phases: 1) preplanning, 2) creating a questionnaire, 3) pre-interview practice, 4) the interview, and 5) discussion and report. The students need to make a vocabulary list and prepare questions before the interview, participate actively in the interview and discussion, and furthermore, prepare a case write-up and submit it to the instructor. The task is fully described in Thble 1 (See page 527).

The whole task used about two hours out of the 4 hours of tutorials scheduled for this lesson. Class written reports submitted a week later showed that the students were able to make a coherent report of the interview results. Although their language ability was limited, they used Japanese as much as possible. Their English comments indicated that they very much enjoyed this experience.

Discussion When we view the objectives of the activities

that compose the whole task, we notice there are basically two kinds of objectives: one of language skills (categorized as [a]) and the other of skills of self-directed learning (categorized as [b]). Some of the language objectives may appear “non-communicative.” However, they either lead directly into “communicative” objectives or are designed to incorporate learner input into the task. For example, Objective 1.1, ‘to create a list of adjectives of one’s own choice,’ may appear to be a straightforward grammar ex- ercise objective. However, this objective forces learners to think about what adjectives or descriptive words they want to use in the upcom- ing interview or in any other situations. They are


TABLE 1

Task Description of “Japanese Language Study Interview”

Pre-planning

1. 1 . 1 1 . 2

1 . 3 1 . 4

Creating a questionnaire

2 .

2 . 1

2 . 2

Make a list of adjectives. Make a list of the desired adjectives in English. In groups, use dictionaries to look up the Japanese equivalent. Use the instructor as a resource person when the dictionaries fail to give sufficient information. Collect the information from all groups to create a list for the class. Make photocopies of the list for everyone and distribute the copies in the next class.

Create a Japanese language study questionnaire to be used in an interview with students from other parallel classes in the same course. Choose a chairperson and a recorder. Discuss in a class what the class wants to ask in the interview with students from other classes about their Japanese language study. Write up the questions in Japanese on the board, using the adjective list they created earlier. Also use the instructor as a resource person to check grammatical accuracy and ap- propriateness of the questions. Agree upon one questionnaire. Each student takes down the questions in his notebook from the ones recorded on the board.

2 . 3

Pre-interview practice

3 . 3 . 1

Practice interview using the questionnaire with peers. Get a partner and interview her or him to fill out the questionnaire. Use appropriate procedures learned in the previous and current lessons in attracting someone’s attention polite- ly, meeting new people, starting the interview and ending the interview. Use conversational interjections throughout the interview. Repeat the process with two more peers. In the process, clarify uncertainty with the instructor.

3 . 2 3.3

The interview

4.

4 . 1

4 . 2

4 .3

Visit other classes having the lesson simultaneously and conduct the interview with their students (strangers). Divide the class into four groups. One group remains in the class to accept visitors and the other three groups visit three different classes to interview. When students from the four different classes gather, start the interview. Use the appropriate procedures practiced earlier. Bke turns and also be interviewed. Repeat the interview process with at least three unfamiliar students from other classes.

Discussion and report

5 . 5 . 1

5 . 2

In the original classroom, discuss information collected from the interview and make a written report (one report per class). Choose a chairperson and a recorder. Discuss in class what kind of answers and other information are collected from the interview and how you felt about the experience. Agree upon a format of a written report. Write up one report per class. You may mix in English when your Japanese skills do not yet allow you to make a point. ’hrn in the report to the instructor for comment by the following week.


Our case study task is analyzed according to Nunan’s framework (9) in terms of its components in Table 2.

TABLE 2

Task Analysis

Goal: The major goal is to create, administer, and summarize the results of a questionnaire interview.

(Since the task has five phases of activity, objectives or subgoals, and input are listed under each activity.)

Activity I: Create a Japanese adjective list.

Objectives:

1 . 1 1 .2

1.3

1 . 4 1.5

1 . 6 1 . 7

Input: English-Japanese dictionaries.

To create a list of adjectives of one’s own choice.(a, b*) To understand the existence of and differences between Na-adjectives and I- adjectives in Japanese.(a) To understand that English adjectives are not always expressed in adjectives in Japanese.(a) To familiarize oneself with the use of a dictionary.(a, b) To understand that one does not have to limit oneself to the vocabulary in the textbook.@) To use the instructor as a resource person.@) To collaborate with peers in creating a piece of work.@)

Activity 2: Creating a Japanese language study questionnaire.

Objectives:

2 . 1 2 . 2 2 . 3 2 . 4 2 . 5

Input: The Japanese adjective list.

To understand the interview procedure.(a) To ask descriptive questions of one’s choice.(a, b) To read and write down questions in Hiragana and Katakana syllabaries.(a) To use peers as well as instructors as a resource.(b) To collaborate with peers to create a piece of work.@)

Activity 3: Interviewing peers.

Objectives:

3 . 1 3 .2 3 . 3 3 . 4

Input: The questionnaire.

To familiarize oneself with the interview and interview procedures.(a) To ask and answer descriptive questions.(a) To write down answers.(a) To use the instructors and peers as a checking mechanism to assess and clarify the questionnaire.@)

Activity 4: Interviewing unfamiliar people.

Objectives:

4 . 1 To get used to taking the initiative in meeting new people using the new language.@)


TABLE 2 (continued)

4 . 2 4 . 3

4 . 4 4 . 5 4 . 6

Input: The questionnaires.

To ask descriptive questions and write down answers.(a) To answer unfamiliar questions asked by the students from other groups true to your feelings. (a, b) (Note: Students from different groups have different questionnaires.) ?b start and complete the activity entirely in the target language.(a, b) To collaborate with the interview partner to have a successful interview@) To view the instructor as a facilitator.(b)

Activity 5: Discuss and report the interview results.

Objectives:

5 . 1 5 . 2 5 . 3 5 . 4 5 . 5

Input:

To report to the class one’s findings from the interview.(a) To collaborate with peers to create a written report.(a, b) To write a report using as much Japanese as the class can produce.(a) To share one’s feelings from the interview experience@) To use the instructor as a commentator and evaluator.(b)

Information gathered from the interview.

Teacher role: Monitor, facilitator, resource person, commentator and evaluator. Learner role: Support group member, discussion participant, questionnaire writer, interview

partner, report writer, resource person, and one’s own self.

Setting: Own classroom, other classroom/group work, pair work.

* [a]: language skill objectives [b]: learning skill objectives

allowed to differ from the textbook and they are allowed to differ from their peers. They can find Japanese adjectives of their own choice, com- bine them with their peers’ choice and create a class list. This becomes important material or “input,” in Nunan’s term in the second phase of the task. We feel that this objective is one vital part of the whole task that is clearly communicative and learner-centered.

Hutchinson and Waters (4) describe “good” teaching material as that which is enjoyable to the learners, which stimulates and engages the learners’ thinking capacities, and which allows the learners to use existing knowledge. The “good” teaching material as defined by Hut- chinson and Waters (4) is clear and systematic, but flexible enough to allow creativity and varie- ty (p.107). All materials or “input” in the task, except the

dictionaries, were created by the learners. The creation process as well as the use engaged the

learners’ thinking capacities. The learner- created input undoubtedly related to the learners’ existing knowledge. The materials created varied among the different classes and all students were exposed to all variations in one way or another.

The student feedback on the task was positive The results from our ’krm 1 Course Evaluation administered in October 1990 at the end of Term 1 showed that the task was one of the three tasks the students liked most during the term.

Although the framework of the task was pro- vided by the teachers, within that framework the students were highly self-directive. All the elements of self-directed learning described earlier were there That is, they collaborated with peers, teachers, and students from other classes to create a favorable learning climate; they assessed their learning needs and transformed them into learning materials and activities in terms of the adjective list, questionnaire and


interview procedures; they selected their learning strategies as the class held discussions in different phases of the task; and they assessed their learning by means of producing a written report and seeking evaluation from the instructor.

We do not believe one exposure to this type of task automatically makes a self-directed learner. Our aim is to expose the learners to increasing- ly self-directed learning experiences so that it will help them become progressively selfdirected.

From our experience of planning, delivering and analyzing the case, we would like to suggest the following to make a task more communicatively oriented, learner-centered, process- oriented and self-directed

We introduced the students to the concept of communicative language teaching, a “good” language learner, learning strategies, and the importance of learner-initiated learning in the introductory one-hour lecture in the beginning of the course. We kept the learners informed of learning skills through our bulletin board. We feel that it is important to familiarize the learners with the concept and the meaning of the new learner role as well as to expose the learners to tasks.

Most teachers are aware of the importance of creating tasks that promote language skills, especially the communicative language skills. We wonder if they are also aware of the value of incorporating objectives related to learning skills into the tasks. Many, we believe, do incorporate such objectives subconsciously. We feel that the objectives on learning skills should surface and should be given an equal importance to the language skills.

Yalden (12) defines the new role of the teacher under the communicative, learner-centered teaching as “monitor, counselor, consultant, orchestrator and animateur” (p.57). The teacher role was one of the components of Nunan’s framework. We feel that the task designers should make con- scious efforts to assign the teachers such roles. This view endorses Knowles’ concept of “an- dragogy” as “the art and science of helping learners learn” as opposed to the traditional concept of “pedagogy” as “the art and science of teaching” (7).

1 .On the new learner role.

2. On learning skills.

3. On new teacher role.

4. On the process of the task. The task described in the case had five phases that the learners had to go through. Each phase was an important preparation for the next phase. The learners’ active participation in one phase helped them in the following phases. They designed their own materials as they went through the phases. The process of the task was extremely important to learning. We feel that the task should be more concerned with the ways or process that the learners interact with the language than the outcome of the language use.

The task in the case study incorporated learner input into learning materials and used learner-designed materials and procedures in many phases. This incorpora- tion of learner input helped balance individual differences in learners’ styles and preferences. We feel that it is important to design tasks which are capable of taking in as much learner input as possible throughout the phases.

5 . On the learner input.

Conclusion This article has examined the specific task

employed in a beginning level Japanese language course at the university level. It has discussed communicative language teaching and self- directed learning and teaching of both language skills and language learning skills. It has analyzed the task in terms of its components and has made five suggestions to create a communicative, learnercentered, process-oriented task.

The suggestions were: (1) familiarize the learners with such concepts as communicative language teaching and self-directed learning, as well as exposing them to communicative and self-directed learning experiences; (2) give equal importance to language skill objectives and to language learning skill objectives in creating tasks; (3) be aware of the new teacher role in task development; (4) place more emphasis on the process of the task than on the outcome; and (5) incorporate learner input throughout the task.

Given the communicative views of language and the increasing emphasis on self-instruction in language learning, the employment of the task in our case study seems a promising alternative to the so-called traditional approaches. The fact that the case in question was delivered in the


fourth week of the course in the beginning stage of language instruction with a large enrollment of 220 shows that the application of the concept of communicative, learner-centered, process- oriented and self-directed learning is not unrealistic in a typical institutional setting.

NCYI’E I would like to thank my colleagues at NUS for their

cooperation in teaching this course. I would also like to show my special appreciation to Sufumi So for her help in the preparation of this article.

REFERENCES 1. Canale, Michael, and Merrill Swain. “Theoretical

bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing.” Applied Lin- guistics, 1(1980):1-47.

2. Dickinson, Leslie. Self-instruction In Language Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987.

3. Hata, Hiromi. “Gakushuusha no shutaisei to kyooshi no yakuwari [Learner initiative and teacher role].” Nihongogaku, 8(1989):82-91.

4. Hutchinson, Tom and Alan Waters. Englkh For Specific Purposes: A Learning-centered A p

ptuach. New York Cambridge University Press, 1987.

5 . Knowles, Malcolm. The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species. Houston: Gulf Publishing Company, 1973.

6. . Sew-directedLearning. New York: Association Press, 1975.

7. . The Modern Pmctice Of Adult Education. Chicago: Follett Publishing Com- pany, 1980.

8. Nunan,David. urn New York cambridge University Press, 1988.

9. . Designing Tasks For The Com- municative Classmom. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

10. Oxford, Rebecca and David Crookall. “Research on language learning strategies: methods, findings, and instructional issues.” The Modern Language Journal 73(1989):404-419.

11. Savignon, Sandra J., and Margie S. Berns, eds., Initiatives .In Communicative Language Teaching. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1984.

12. Yalden, Janice. Principles Of CoumDesign For Language =aching. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987.

I

Spanish * French * German I r ’ ‘

---- - Ram Placement Testing -\YE=\

0 Precisely place high school and transfer students in your program

0 Self administered in 20-25 minutes

and registration

with Computerized Adaptive Placement Exams

cally selects the difficulty level

0 Immediate results for counseling

0 Calibrate to your curriculum 0 Runs on IBM-compatible PC 0 Test results may be printed or

Brigham Young University Technology Transfer Office A-268 Abraham Srnoot Bldg.

UT 84602 stored in a compiled format (801) 378-6266

FAX 378-2138

Call for a free demonstration disk!

Documents

Learner-Centered Tasks in the Foreign Language Classroom