tblt 2009 lancaster l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
TBLT 2009 Lancaster PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
TBLT 2009 Lancaster

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 17

TBLT 2009 Lancaster - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 202 Views
  • Uploaded on

TBLT 2009 Lancaster. Applying Content- and Task-Based Instruction in an EAP Project on Postmodernism Aviva Soesman Tel Aviv University soesman@post.tau.ac.il. Presentation Outline. Content-based Instruction – rationale / benefits Task-based Instruction – rationale / benefits The project

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'TBLT 2009 Lancaster' - paniz


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
tblt 2009 lancaster
TBLT 2009 Lancaster

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

Aviva Soesman

Tel Aviv University

soesman@post.tau.ac.il

presentation outline
Presentation Outline
  • Content-based Instruction –

rationale / benefits

  • Task-based Instruction –

rationale / benefits

  • The project
  • Students’ feedback
content based instruction
Content-based Instruction
  • “the concurrent learning of a specific content and related language use skills” with “the selection and sequence of language elements determined by the content ” (Brinton, 2007: 11)
  • Different models
  • Common concept: integration/knowledge
content based instruction why
Content-based Instruction: WHY?
  • Removes “arbitrary distinction” (Brinton, 2007: 17)
  • Language learning more authentic - language in context and used for communicating meaning =real world (e.g., Garner & Borg, 2005; Pally, 2000)
  • Added Knowledge (Stoller, 2002; Wesche,1993);

“Two-for-one” (Wesche & Skehan, 2002: 221)

  • Therefore: Motivation / Engagement (Nunan, 2004)
  • Vocabulary reinforcement (Shih, 1992; Murphy & Stoller, 2001)
  • Schemata(Pally, 2000)
cbi in eap why
CBI in EAP: WHY?
  • Bridges Gap between EFL and other courses
    • Simulation of University settings – authentic / relevant (Stoller, 2004; Wesche & Skehan, 2002)
    • Simulation of actual subject matter - motivating/ relevant
    • Variety of similar subject matter = better preparation for needed skills (Shih, 1992; Kirschner & Wexler, 2002; Garner & Borg, 2005)

“The most educationally appropriate approach”

for EAP (Garner & Borg, 2005: 120)

tbi why
TBI: WHY?
  • Communicative Activities and Meaningful language use (Jeon & Hahn, 2006; Nunan, 2004)
  • Student-centered / autonomy (Flinch, 2005)
  • “Learning by doing”, active (Lingley, 2006; Nunan, 2004)
  • Collaboration (Ellis, 2003; Cobb & Lovick, 2007)
  • Authentic – real life and academia (Nunan, 2006; Shih, 1992)
tbi why7
TBI: WHY?
  • Breaks Routine (Cobb & Lovick, 2007)
  • Cognitive investment/mental effort = deeper language processing = long-term retention (Cobb & Lovick, 2007)
  • Functional reading, read for clear purpose (Bogaert, 2005)

Therefore:

  • Student engagement and increased motivation (e.g. Cobb & Lovick, 2007; Nunan, 2004; Willis, 1996)
a learning sequence on pm
A Learning Sequence on PM
  • Framework
  • Five lessons – two core texts + other materials

- Activities acquiring knowledge

- Activities applying knowledge

  • Oral presentations
the tasks
The Tasks
  • Jigsaw – information gap task - groups
  • Movie (Blade Runner)
  • Jigsaw – pairs
  • Pictures – reach consensus

Steps, Interaction, Non-linguistic purpose, Meaning, Cognitive, Observable Outcome (Cobb and Lovick, 2007)

Simulation of academic tasks

integrative project
Integrative Project
  • Subtasks and oral presentation
  • Purpose of oral presentation
  • Three stages 1.Choose piece

2.Find source

3.Give presentation

  • Instructions
rationale
Rationale
  • Natural sequence, but student-centered
  • Simulation of academia:

-access academic sources

-synthesize information

-apply theory, show understanding

-analyze work of art

-oral presentation

  • Oral presentations (King, 2002; Kirschner & Wexler, 2002)
students feedback
Students’ Feedback
  • Understanding of PM: 4.9
  • Asking questions only: 1.8
  • Good assessment tool: 3.8
  • Important skills: 3.7

Negative comments

Positive comments

in conclusion
In Conclusion

Applicability in different EAP contexts

references
References

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

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

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

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

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

Garner, M. & Borg, E. (2005). An ecological perspective on content-based instruction. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4, 119-134.

Jeon, I. & Hahn, J. (2006). Exploring EFL Teachers' Perceptions of Task-Based Language Teaching: A Case Study of Korean Secondary School Classroom Practice. Asian EFL Journal, 8 (1). Retrieved October 2008 from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/March_06_ijj.php

references cont
References – Cont.

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

Kirschner, M. & Wexler, C. (2002). Caravaggio: A design for an interdisciplinary content-based EAP/ESP unit. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1, 163-183.

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

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

Nunan. D. (2004). Task-based Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, D. (2006). Task-based language teaching in the Asian context: Defining ‘task’. Asian EFL Journal,8 (3). Retrieved October 2008 from http://asian-efl-journal.com/Sept_06_dn.php.

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

references cont17
REFERENCES – Cont.

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

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

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

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

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

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