Developing Grammar Consciousness-raising through Task-based Language Teaching

1. Developing Grammar Consciousness-raisingthrough Task-based Language Teaching Farida ABDERRAHIM University of Constantine , ALGERIA farida_abderrahim@hotmail.com

2. Outline • Place of grammar in language teaching . • Rationale for Consciousness-raising(CR) . • Principles of Task-based Language Teaching(TBLT). • GCRTs in EFL at university level .

3. Place of Grammar in Language Teaching • Grammar has always fascinated theorists and practitioners in the field of education. • On the whole, exceptfor the Communicative Approach where language use is believed to lead to the command of the target language , • agreement that the grammatical component should not be neglected , • need for learning the code and practising it in a systematic manner in order to achieve linguisticproficiency .

4. Agreement also that grammatical errors area natural phenomenon reflecting restructuring , replacing , readjusting , developingcommunicative strategies . • As to FLlearning , the context of our paper, it has been found to be determined by : exposure to comprehensible input , attitude , motivation , interaction , cognitive processes . • So , grammar pedagogy has to take into account the sound findings of : Linguistics , Psycholinguistics , Sociolinguistics , Neurolinguistics , Cognitive Psychology .

5. The Consciousness-raising Approach • One development of these related disciplines is CR a cognitive approach to grammatical instruction developed by Sharwood-Smith( 1981 ) . • Compatible with research findings related to how learners acquire second / foreign language grammar . • A learner-centered orientation, with emphasis on : learning processes and strategies where the learners rely on their intellectual capacities and use their cognitive modes to learning : the most important one being noticingleading to awareness about the use of a language structure .

6. Aspects of grammar are focused on , without necessarily using explicit rules or technical jargon to help learners discover the rules by themselves . • CR has proved to be useful at an initial stage of acquisition , the stage of controlled processing , to trigger the declarative knowledge, paving the way gradually to the procedural knowledge when learners attend to content rather than form (Ellis 2003).

7. Task-based Language Teaching • A curriculumis viewed as a collection of academictasks specifying : 1. the productsstudents are to formulate , 2. the operationsrequired to generate the product , 3. theressourcesavailable to the students to generatethe product. ( Doyle 1979, 1983 ,reported by Nunan 1988) • Starting from this view, other researchers, (eg. Richards, Platt andWeber 1985, Candlin 1987,Nunan 1989,Long 1989,Robinson 1995, Willis 1996) have specified the various aspects of a task, stressed themeaning - primacy interactions to solve a communicative problemcomparable with real world activities with an outcome , argued that optimum conditions for communicative development lead to interlanguage development ,

8. A task has : • a goal: the general purpose of the task, • aninput : verbal or non-verbal information supplied by the task, • conditions: the way in which information is presented , • procedure : the method followed in performing the task, • predicted outcomes: the product .( Ellis 2003 ) A task with the above characteristics , can be : • an information-gapactivity involving a transfer of given information fromone learner to another ; • a reasoning-gapactivity involving the discovery of newinformation through inference , deduction or perception of relationships or patterns; • or an opinion-gapactivityinvolving a responseto a given information . (Prabhu 1987)

9. In thiscontext, form (structure) has to be : • Natural : the use of a structure during a task doesnot stand out . • Useful : the use of a structurehelps in completing the task . • Essential : a structurehas tobe used in order to complete a task . (Loschly and Bley-Vroman 1993) Focus on formcan be : • Proactive : the choice of the form is made in advance : when we design the task , we ensure that opportunities to use problematic forms while communicating a message will arise ; • or Reactive: the learners notice and are prepared to handle various learning difficulties as they arise . (Doughty and Williams 1998) However, thereis a reaction to this view which stipulates that : languageaspects that are not salient may go unnoticed . ( Long 1991 , Schmidt 1990 )

10. Two major TB models : Willis (1996) : • The pre-task activities whichaim at activating the schematic knowledge , what is likely to make the task authentic and providingopportunity for a focus on form and noticing . • The task stage which stresses the form-meaning relationship providingopportunity for language use and the development of accuracy, fluency and complexity, contributing to the proceduralisation of language . • The language focusstage withCR activities requiring learners to process input in a way which makes features more salient and aiming at getting the learners to identify and think about particular features of language form and use at their own time .

11. Skehan (1998) developed aninformation-processing approach where the tasks : • cover a wide range of structures ; • are selected on the basis of the utility criterion ; • are selected and sequenced in such a way as to achieve a balanced development of accuracy , fluency and complexity ; • offer maximum chances of focus on form through : manipulation , reflection and awareness .

12. Grammar Consciousness-raising Tasks • It is possible to integrate the teaching of grammar with opportunities for communication, exchange of information in grammar tasks students solve interactively in order to formulate : • the implicit knowledge : intuitive and procedural knowledge, • and the explicit knowledge : the knowledge we learn , which when linked with opportunities for natural communication , helps to provide more rapid second language acquisition . ( Long 1988 , and Ellis 1990 )

13. These tasks provide opportunities • topractiseforms that have been first presented declaratively • and to receive feedback on the mistakes under real conditions . They are information-gap activities : they • promotecommunication about grammar , • raisethe learners’ consciousness about the grammatical characteristics of the language , • require the exchange of information in order to reach an agreed solution to a problem . (Ellis 2003) • Fotos and Ellis (1991) and Fotos (1994) showed that grammar tasks (with task sheet and task cards)produced significant gains in the understanding of the targeted structure .

14. Our Study :First Year EFL University Students Are GCRTs effective • for developinggrammatical accuracy • and promotinggrammatical explicit knowledge of English tenses ? Whytenses ? 1. Problematic area : The students are confused by : • the various tenses in their simple and continuous forms , and in their perfective aspects , • and by the complexity of the uses of each tense . 2. The students often ask for rules to make them become aware of the use of the tenses, and consequently use them correctly. 3. Mistakes maderequire , • formal instruction • and CR activities to make the learners achieve an accurate use of the tenses in an appropriate context of communication .

15. Comparison of the results of two groups • One : TTFGLS (traditional grammar teaching and written practice). • One : GCRTs consisting of : information-gap activities : the students complete a giveninput , reasoning-gap activities : the students induce the rules underlying the given sentences , and decision-making activities : the students reach a negotiated decision . • The tasks are designed in conformity with the taskcomponents explained earlier. Goals : the tasks are expected to : 1. raise the students’ consciousness about the English tenses ; 2.help them gain grammatical explicit knowledge of this aspect ; 3. promote their grammatical accuracy; 4. provide them with opportunities tointeract , communicate and negotiate meaning to improve fluency and achieve implicit knowledge ; 5. enhance their autonomy , self-confidence and motivation .

16. Input A Task sheet , Task cards and Task directions . Example : The Present Simple ( Pr.S ) A Task sheetconsisting of : • Form : the 4 forms of thePr.Sto be completed , • Use : the 4 uses of the Pr.Shave to be identified in a series of 4 sentences included in the 4 task cards . Task cards: 4 cards Each containing one form : Affirmative , Negative , Interrogative and Interro-Negative ; and one use of the Pr.S : Truth , Habit , Planned future actions , and Past related as present or historic present .

17. Task directions Objectives : Through this task , you are expected to beable to : • raise your awareness , • and gain an explicit knowledge about the different forms and uses of the Pr.S through a series of interaction and exchange of information . Organisation of the task : 1. Completethe task cards individually . 2. Dictate them to your subgroup who write them down on the task sheet . 3. Discuss the use of the Pr.Syou think corresponds to the sentences . 4. Negotiate your choice with the other subgroups . The procedure 1. Analysis of the task card input to find the required tenseform and rule governing the set of sentences to be copied in in the task sheets . 2. Interaction and negotiation of the answer provided by each one . 3. Once the right answer is agreed on , it is submitted to the whole class for a general agreement under the teacher’sguidance and control .

18. Outcomes : The students have to develop : 1. understanding of the forms and the uses of the tense , 2. the ability to choose the correct rule underlying the tense , 3. interaction , autonomy and motivation , 4. an active rolein the process of learning through the exchange ofinformation . Results The post-test results (essay writing, narration) indicate that GCRTs are: 1. more effective for developinggrammatical accuracy and grammatical explicit knowledge than TTFGLs, 2. more effective for fosteringinteraction and comprehensible output and for enhancingstudents’ autonomy , self-confidence and motivation . This gives us grounds to advocateGCRTs as a motivating methodology to the teaching of grammar in the context of EFL .

19. Conclusion 1. The general goal of language learning is fluent accuracy and effective use of the target language . So, the primary concern of a teacher should be how to integrate attention to form and meaning . 2. GCRTs are in accordance with the principle that what learners can find by and for themselves is better remembered than what they are simply told . 3. They are a critical investigation of the linguistic features involving the learners in a study of the form and the use.

20. References Candlin, Christopher, N. (1987). Towards Task-based Language Learning. In Candlin, C.N. and D. Murphy (eds) Lancaster Practical Papers in English Language Education 7, 5-22. EnglewoodsCliffs,N.J. :Prentice Hall. Doughty, Catherine and Jessica Williams (1998). Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge Applied Linguistics. Ellis, Rod (1990). Instructed SLA: Learning in the Classroom. Oxford:Blackwell. Ellis, Rod (2003). Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford. Fotos, Sandra (1994). Integrating Grammar Instruction and Communicative Language Use Through Grammar Consciousness-Raising Tasks. TESOLQuarterly 28 (2), 323-351. Fotos, Sandra and Rod Ellis (1991). Communicating About Grammar: A Task-Based Approach. TESOL Quarterly 25 (4), 605-628. Long, Michael, H. (1988). Instructed Interlanguage Development. M. Beebe (eds) Issues in Second Language Acquisition: Multiple Perspectives. NewYork: Newbury House.

21. Long, Michael, H. (1989). Task, Group, and Task-group Interactions. In University of Hawaii Working Papers in ESL 8.1-26. Long, Michael, H. (1991) Focus on Form: a Design Feature in Language Teaching Methodology. K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg and C. Kranisch (eds) Foreign Language Research in Cross-cultural Perspective. Amsterdam, John Benjamin. Loschky, Lester and Robert Bley-Vroman (1993) Grammar and Task- based Methodology. In Crookes, G. and S.M. Gass (eds). Nunan, David (1988). Syllabus Design. Oxford University Press. Nunan, David (1989). Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge University Press. Prabhu, N.S. (1987). Second Language Pedagogy: a Perspective. Oxford University Press

22. Richards, J., J. Platt and H. Weber (1985). Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics. London: Longman. Robinson, Peter (1995). Review article: Attention, Memory and the “Noticing” Hypothesis. Language Learning 45 (2), 281-331. Schmidt, Richards (1990). The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning. Applied Linguistics 11 (2), 129-158. Sharwood-Smith, M. (1981). Consciousness-raising and the Second Language Learner. Applied linguistics 2, 159-168. Skehan, Peter (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language learning. Oxford University Press. Willis, Jane (1996). A Framework for Task-based Learning. Longman. White, Ronald V. (1988). The ELT Curriculum: Design, Innovation and Management.Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Yip, Virginia (1994). Grammatical Consciousness-raising and Learnability. In Terence Odlin (Ed.),Perspectives on Pedagogical Grammar. Cambridge: Applied Linguistics, 123-139.