Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rill20

Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching

ISSN: 1750-1229 (Print) 1750-1237 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rill20

Perceptual mismatches in the interpretation oftask-based ELT materials: a micro-evaluation of atask-based English lesson

John Harper & Handoyo Puji Widodo

To cite this article: John Harper & Handoyo Puji Widodo (2018): Perceptual mismatches in theinterpretation of task-based ELT materials: a micro-evaluation of a task-based English lesson,Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2018.1502773

Published online: 01 Aug 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Perceptual mismatches in the interpretation of task-based ELTmaterials: a micro-evaluation of a task-based English lessonJohn Harper and Handoyo Puji Widodo

Shantou University, Shantou, Guangdong, P.R. China

ABSTRACTThis article reports on a classroom-based study that examined perceptualmismatches in the interpretation of task-based ELT materials in theChinese university context. The study looked particularly into the micro-evaluation of the task-based English lesson. Based mainly on qualitativeanalysis, findings showed that there was a general agreement that thelesson focused more on meaning and less on form. While students wereengaged in the negotiation of meaning, they focused incidentally onform, such as vocabulary and pronunciation, because they thought thatboth were a catalyst for a clear understanding of the messagesarticulated. Despite this, student participants reported that theyprioritized meaning as idea development or fluency because they co-constructed the meanings of content knowledge as the point ofdeparture of learning tasks. Drawing on these findings, three practicalimplications are presented: (1) learning goals as a shared vision, (2) taskdesign as the optimization of student engagement, and (3) negotiationof meaning as knowledge co-construction. The present study calls formore investigative endeavor that looks into a micro-evaluation of task-based language lessons in other EFL contexts in China and in Asia.

ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 18 June 2017Accepted 17 July 2018

KEYWORDSChina; EFL; micro-evaluation;task; TBLT

Introduction

Attempts at trying to explain what actually occurs in a language classroommust take into account thepossibility of perceptual mismatches. These mismatches may occur between teachers and students(see Karabuga 2015; Kumaravadivelu 1991, 1994). They may also occur between curriculum andmaterials designers on the one hand and teachers on the other (see Lee 2015; Littlejohn 2011,Widodo, 2015a). The recognition of the discrepancies between what is taught and what is learnedis certainly not new (see Allwright 1984). As early as 1995, Nunan argued that a difference in ‘peda-gogical agenda’ may account for such discrepancies (135). Echoing this sentiment, Lee (2015)suggests that teachers need to make special efforts to match methods and materials to learningstyles (see also Karabuga 2015; Nation and Macalister 2010; Peacock 2001). Wong (2011), notingthat learners often cannot identify the objectives of their lessons, argues for the implementationof strategies to ensure learners’ awareness of lesson goals and thus to increase learners’ focus onlearning outcomes (see also Block 1996). Moreover, Kim, Jung, and Tracy-Ventura (2017), in reportingon a semester-long longitudinal study, find that a pedagogical innovation (i.e. a task-based course inSouth Korea) may result in an initial mismatch that is minimized as learners become more familiarwith the pedagogical approach.

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

CONTACT Handoyo Puji Widodo handoyopw@yahoo.com

INNOVATION IN LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHINGhttps://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2018.1502773

As the preceding comments reveal (and as is well known), gaps between teachers and learners’perceptions lead to investigations into what the causes of the gaps might be. Logically, coursematerials come into play in such investigations. From one point of view, the materials of particularlessons (and therefore the activities based on them) could be said to constitute the entirety of a par-ticular course in a piece-by-piece fashion – even though these materials and activities are ultimatelyexpected to meet the objectives and lead to the specified outcomes of the course as a whole (seeCrabbe 2003; Freeman 1996; Richards 2013; Widodo 2017). If particular materials within particularlessons are viewed as the building blocks of an entire course, it would seem necessary to considerperceptual mismatches concerning materials in some detail.

This study will take the view of Guerrettaz and Johnston (2013) – specifically, that ‘materials’consist of ‘any artifacts that prompt the learning and use of language in the language classroom,’‘including pictures, realia, and virtual artifacts such as [websites] and computer programs’ (779; seealso Richards 2001; Tomlinson 2012; Widodo and Savova 2010). Guerrettaz and Johnston note thatthe effect of materials is greatly influenced by students’ interpretations of them (see also Nunan1996). Such a view suggests, rightly no doubt, that ‘materials-in-action’ may provide more or lessthan what is stated in the original goals of the materials (Littlejohn 2011, 181). Ultimately, then, a con-clusion may be drawn that ‘materials-in-action,’ regardless of their stated goals, will be altered, forbetter or for worse, according to the classroom situation resulting from the interaction among the‘three major elements in the equation: the materials, the teacher and the learners’ (Maley 2011,379; see also Crabbe 2007; Van den Branden 2009).

The study reported here involves a micro-evaluation of a lesson based on the principles of task-based learning and teaching (henceforth, TBLT). It investigates possible perceptual mismatchesbetween the classroom teacher and the students of the course. Prior to a discussion of the studyitself, a brief overview of TBLT as it relates to the study is necessary.

Conceptualizing a task

TBLT is often not considered a methodology but rather a ‘curricular content’ (Kumaravadivelu 2006,65) or an ‘approach’ (see Ellis 2009, 2011). As a cursory glance at the TBLT literature indicates,definitions of the term task abound and appear not to lend themselves to any universal agreement(see Kumaravadivelu 2006). Ellis (2003) and Nunan (2004) provide extensive surveys of the variousdefinitions of the term task as it relates to TBLT. It is beyond the scope of this article to engage ina lengthy discussion of task definitions and the analyses of them. Hence, the current discussionwill be limited to some of the more prominent and agreed upon features of tasks as they relate tothe present study.

Nunan (2004), taking from Long (1985), discusses both ‘target tasks’ and ‘pedagogical tasks’ (1).Pedagogical tasks, those implemented within classrooms and thus the type logically employed inmost academic settings, are defined as follows:

[A] pedagogical task is a piece of classroom work that involves learners in comprehending, manipulating, produ-cing or interacting in the target language while their attention is focused on mobilizing their grammatical knowl-edge in order to express meaning, and in which the intention is to convey meaning rather than to manipulateform. (2004, 4)

Drawing on Skehan’s (1998) work, Ellis (2009) provides the following criteria for a task:

1. The primary focus should be on ‘meaning’ (by which is meant that learners should be mainly con-cerned with processing the semantic and pragmatic meaning of utterances).

2. There should be some kind of ‘gap’ (i.e. a need to convey information, to express an opinion or toinfer meaning).

3. Learners should largely have to rely on their own resources (linguistic and non-linguistic) in orderto complete the activity.

2 J. HARPER AND H. P. WIDODO

4. There is a clearly defined outcome other than the use of language (i.e. the language serves as themeans for achieving the outcome, not as an end in its own right) (223; see also Ellis 2011, 212;Richards 2001; Widodo 2012).

Clearly, the authors coincide in the view that tasks require a focus on meaning. Such a view, inci-dentally, does not necessarily rule out a focus on form but rather suggests that, if learners’ ‘naturallanguage learning capacity’ is to be ‘nurtured,’ a focus on meaning must be given priority (Ellis2009, 222; see also Ellis 2005; Nation 2007). Another essential component of tasks is the presenceof a clearly defined non-linguistic outcome (Andon and Eckerth 2009; Lin and Wu 2012). Thisfocus on outcomes, however, does not overlook the processes in which learners engage in orderto reach a desired outcome. As Nunan (2004) points out, TBLT takes in large part from experientiallearning, an approach which prioritizes ‘process rather than product’ (12). Hence, while tasks ask lear-ners to reach a particular goal, they also emphasize ‘interactional processes… that arise in naturallyoccurring language use’ along the path toward goal attainment (Ellis 2009, 227). Finally, in complet-ing a task, learners are expected to make good use of ‘their own resources.’ Granted, through listen-ing and/or reading activities, teachers may help to provide learners with some of the linguisticresources necessary for task completion (see Ellis 2003, 2009; Foster 2009; Nunan 1991), yet task com-pletion will not be possible simply through the use of recycled language (Andon and Eckerth 2009).

Literature review

Ellis (2011) makes the distinction betweenmacro-evaluations andmicro-evaluations of TBLT. A macro-evaluation is one that investigates how well a program/project has met its goals and/or how aprogram/project may be improved. Such studies, according to Ellis, are ‘carried out for accountabilityand/or developmental purposes’ (215). A micro-evaluation, on the other hand, consists of ‘a narrowfocus on some specific aspect of the curriculum or the administration of the programme’ (Ellis, 2011,216). Ellis goes on to note that issues tackled in a macro-evaluation (e.g. issues related to materials,teachers, learners) may also be the focus of a micro-evaluation. A macro-evaluation of the materials ofa course might be narrowed down to a study of how effective and efficient a given task is (Ellis 2011).Micro-evaluations, then, are of value in that they may provide information for macro-evaluations.Additionally, such evaluations may aid in what Kumaravadivelu (2001) refers to as a ‘pedagogy of par-ticularity’ – that is, to a teacher’s taking a closer look at problems and then looking for solutions tothose problems.

Macro-evaluation of TBLT

A number of macro-evaluations of TBLT-based programs have been carried out (e.g. Andon andEckerth 2009; Gatbonton and Gu 1994; Jeon and Hahn 2006; Lin and Wu 2012; Prabhu 1987; Pyun2013). These studies deal with a variety of issues relevant to the furthering of a TBLT-based curricu-lum. In a discussion focused on perceptual mismatches in TBLT-oriented classrooms, however, thework of Carless (2003, 2004), Watson Todd (2006), and McDonough and Chaikitmongkol (2007)would seem to merit special consideration.

Carless (2003) reported case studies of three primary school teachers in Hong Kong. While the tea-chers were asked to implement a task-based curriculum, they were not involved in the design of thecurriculum or of the tasks included in it and hence encountered difficulties that the designers had notforeseen. Also, tasks did not always appear to fit students’ interests – perhaps because the ‘perspec-tives’ of the students ‘were not a focus’ (Carless 2004, 645). Perceptual mismatches would thus seemto have resulted from the lack of inclusion of the ‘active participants in the classroom drama’ in thedesign process (Nunan 1996, 53). Watson Todd (2006) examined a TBLT-based project in Thailand inwhich teachers’ opinions were the driving force behind a movement from a ‘strong’ version of TBLT toa ‘weak’ version (see Skehan 1996). The author acknowledges, however, that the lack of student input

INNOVATION IN LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING 3

was a drawback in ongoing curriculum revision. McDonough and Chaikitmongkol (2007) investigatedan all-inclusive curriculum design project carried out at Chiang Mai University (Thailand). The teachersdesigned the course. Tasks were designed around students’ real-world interests. Data for the studyincluded the opinions of both teachers and students. Perceptual mismatches between curriculumdesigners and teachers were non-existent since the teachers were the curriculum designers; percep-tual mismatches between teachers and students were identified through the research method.

In short, the findings of the studies discussed above would seem to reveal that, in the implemen-tation of an innovation (in these cases, a TBLT approach), the learner cannot be ‘left standing in thewings’ (Nunan 1988, 88). Of particular relevance to the present study is the finding that TBLTmethods, in spite of some opinions to the contrary (see summary in Butler 2011), do not stand outas being inappropriate within an Asian context. Ultimately, students need to have the chance tounderstand an approach before they can benefit from it (see Cheng 2000; Kim, Jung, and Tracy-Ventura 2017).

(Lack of) micro-evaluation of TBLT

In comparing macro-evaluations and micro-evaluations, Ellis (2011) makes the following commentconcerning the latter: ‘[M]icro-evaluations rarely find their way into journals. Such studies are oftenseen as too localised and too small scale, and so theoretically uninteresting’ (232). Indeed, acursory glance at ELT literature reveals that micro-evaluations consistently fail to appear in major jour-nals. And when the notion of micro-evaluation is discussed in published works, there is an underlyingassumption that such evaluation will be carried out at the institutional level for those directlyinvolved in the teaching of a particular course (see McGrath 2002; Tomlinson 2013b). However, itmust be acknowledged that micro-research, if not micro-evaluation, of TBLT is prevalent in TBLT-related literature.

What may be called micro-research of TBLT is not based on classroom data of TBLT-in-action.Studies such as García Mayo (2002), Jenks (2007), and Geng and Ferguson (2013) are certainlymicro in nature as they focus on one aspect of a larger phenomenon (i.e. TBLT). These studies,however, present research carried out in a laboratory setting and thus cannot be consideredmicro-evaluations for the simple reason that they ‘control contextual variables’ instead of investi-gating the manner in which these variables ‘impact on the effectiveness of the materials and teach-ing’ (Ellis 2011, 232). Micro-evaluation, then, must reveal the ways in which ‘specific learners grapplewith particular tasks’ (Ellis 2011, 231). This type of evaluation, by taking into account ‘contextual vari-ables,’ and by taking into account all of the ‘active participants in the classroom drama,’ should helpresearchers and teachers to discover what ‘works,’ what should be modified, and what should berejected (see Block 1996; Ellis 2011; Kumaravadivelu 2001). In short, micro-evaluations, while provid-ing a microscopic view of the components that make up an entire course, also serve as a bridgebetween the cleanliness of a laboratory setting and the potential messiness of a classroom setting(see Robinson 2011; Van den Branden 2009).

The study

The present classroom-based study investigates the micro-evaluation of TBLT materials. It took placeat the English Language Center (ELC) of Shantou University (Guangdong Province, China) during theSpring Semester of 2017. As one goal of the study was to look into mismatches between the instruc-tor’s stated purpose of the lesson and the students’ perception of the purpose of the lesson, theinstructor (one of the authors of this article) first described his goals for the lesson (see Appendix 1).As another goal of the study was to investigate the ways in which classroom dynamics (i.e. the inter-play among instructor, students, and materials) might lead to results different from those originallyintended, the entire lesson was observed by an external observer (EO) (a member of the ELC notaffiliated with the course in any way) who documented his thoughts concerning lesson purpose

4 J. HARPER AND H. P. WIDODO

(see Appendix 2). On the day of the lesson, tasks carried out with students working collaborativelywere recorded.

The research questions that guided the study were the following:

(1) What perceptual mismatches might exist between the instructor’s original learning goals for TBLTmaterials and the students’ interpretation of the ‘materials-in-action’?

(2) How might classroom dynamics (teacher–student and student–student interactions) add to ortake away from the pre-established learning goals of TBLT materials?

Institutional context

As mentioned previously, the study reported here was carried out at the ELC of Shantou University, akey provincial university in Guangdong Province, China. The ELC offers a four-level, four-semesterrequired program for all non-English majors. Classes meet twice a week for 90 minutes each time;students earn a total of 16 credit hours. The principle of integrated skills is present throughout theentire program. In keeping with the College English Curriculum Requirements of 2007 set by theChinese Ministry of Education, the ELC has established the Five Golden Rules of English Learning: profi-ciency, autonomy, sustainability, intercultural communication, and critical thinking skills.

Within this framework lies the Global Law English (hereafter, GLE) Program, the program withinwhich the present study was conducted. The GLE Program, as the name suggests, is gearedtoward students of International Law. For these students, the program replaces normal ELC require-ments. Like the General English Program, GLE consists of four-levels (and hence four semesters), andstudents earn 16 credit hours. A focus on integrated skills is still present, and the Golden Rules stillapply. The biggest differences between the GLE Program and the General English Program lie incourse content and syllabus design. As not all students of GLE intend to become lawyers (seebelow), the content of GLE courses maintains some aspects of General English (GE), with law-related matters being tied to General English themes. Hence, a topic such as work eventually leadsto a lesson based on a gender discrimination case, and a topic such as sports eventually leads to alesson dealing with the legal considerations surrounding sports doping. These law-related lessonsare taught through interactive, cooperative tasks. Such tasks, by encouraging students to makeuse of prior knowledge, to negotiate meaning in group work, and to go through the process of reach-ing a group decision, should aid students in their future endeavors regardless of their final choice ofprofession (see Dovey 2006).

Participants

The participants in the study were students of Global Law English 2 (GLE-2) at Shantou University. Allparticipants were second-semester freshmen who had studied together in their previous Englishclass (i.e. GLE-1) and who typically studied together in many, though not all, of their majorcourses. As a major in International Law requires a relatively high score on the Chinese CollegeEntrance Exam (gaokao), and as it also gives special importance to the English requirement of theexam, students of GLE-2, though not above the high-intermediate level, tend to have a slightlyhigher level of English proficiency than do most other second-semester freshmen at Shantou Univer-sity. On an IELTS-based placement exam, for example, GLE-2 students scored, on average, 4.85 whilethe university average was 4.33 (a 12% difference). It should be noted, however, that 11 of the 30 GLE-2 students scored from 5.5 to 6.5 on the same exam. In short, the results reveal that GLE-2 students,regardless of having a slightly higher-than-average level of English proficiency within the institutionalcontext, still need a substantial amount of training in order to reach a high level of proficiency in inter-national terms.

It is precisely due to scores on the Chinese College Entrance Exam that students of GLE-2 mayhave chosen their major. A GLE-1 during-course needs analysis of the same students revealed

INNOVATION IN LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING 5

that only two members of the class felt certain that the profession of law was in their career path.Though all 30 students of the class signed a consent form in which they agreed to have thelesson observed and evaluated, one happened to be absent on the day of the micro-evaluation;one requested not to complete a post-lesson questionnaire; and one simply forgot to submit thequestionnaire. Finally, then, though 29 students participated in the study, only 27 submittedquestionnaires. Of the 29 students present on the day of the evaluation, 24 were females andfive were males.

The lesson

The subject of this micro-evaluation was a TBLT-based law lesson. As the textbook unit focused onanimals, the lesson revolved around a legal case in which an American family attempted to adopta pot-bellied pig as a pet even though doing so was against a city ordinance. The lesson beganwith three schema-building tasks (see Nunan 2004). First, students worked in small groups tochoose from a short list of possible pets the one that they would most likely choose and the onethat they would least likely choose. This warm-up task was followed by a reading of the legal caseand group work calling for students to piece together the facts of the case. Next came a listeningtask in which students, after listening to an authentic video, worked in groups to identify some ofthe advantages and disadvantages of raising a pot-bellied pig. The reading and listening taskswere both intended to provide students not only with the context of the main task but also with lin-guistic resources necessary for its completion.

The main task of the lesson, The Board Meeting, consisted of a simulation in which students, actingas members of the city council, needed to use the skills of negotiation, persuasion, and compromisein order to decide whether or not the family would in fact be able to adopt a pot-bellied pig. Students,working in pairs, were asked to prepare arguments for both sides of the case (to amend or not toamend the city ordinance). After eight minutes of preparation time, pairs were assigned positionsin the case, and pairs were combined so that those in favor of amending the city ordinance joinedthose who were against amending the city ordinance. Negotiation ensued in what was essentiallya debate. When a one-minute warning was given, groups needed to reach some sort of agreement.

Data collection and analysis

The lesson analyzed in this article was taught in the tenth week of a 16-week semester. As mentionedabove, the lesson centered around a residential family’s attempts to fight a city ordinance prohibitingthe adoption of a pig as a pet. The choice of this particular lesson was rather straightforward. It wasconsidered a typical, task-based lesson in the course; and on the day of the lesson, there would be nodistractions such as homework checks, assignment explanations, and other stuff.

Prior to the lesson, the EO analyzed lesson materials. Once the lesson had concluded, the studentscompleted a questionnaire, written in English but with translations provided in Mandarin Chinese,concerning how they viewed the lesson in terms of learning/practice opportunities and overallpurpose (see Appendix 3). In order to take into account the possible ‘fallibility of single items’(Dörnyei and Csizér 2012, 76), some overlap among questions within a particular category wasensured. A focus group of seven students from the course was then formed. Due to schedulingconflicts, the members of the focus group had to be divided into two sub-groups (one of three stu-dents, one of four students). The members of the two sub-groups met for one hour with the EO. TheEO, using information gleaned from the observation and from questionnaire results, led the studentsto elaborate on certain components of the lesson and to provide their opinions of those components.Additionally, audio recordings of group work from the lesson were transcribed in order to provide theresearchers with yet another option for the testing of hypotheses arising from the questionnaire. Inother words, the qualitative element of the study was intended to add ‘depth to the quantitativeresults’ (Dörnyei 2007, 45; see also Friedman 2012; Hashemi and Babaii 2013).

6 J. HARPER AND H. P. WIDODO

Ultimately, all the in-class discussion and focus group discussion (FGD) data were qualitativelyclassified, coded, and analyzed through a micro-textual lens. In this analysis, we identified themesand made meaning of them. We used lexical choices to assign meanings to the data. For focuseddata analysis, we reduced sets of data in order to look at relevant data representing our researchquestions. After close textual examination, two emergent themes of the data were identified, withboth being related to the instructor and the students’ perceptions of the lesson. These themeswere (1) learning goals and task design and (2) focus on meaning and negotiation of meaning(with incidental focus on form).

Findings and discussion

The present study was designed to continue the current discussion on the use of a pedagogical taskin a non-English speaking ELT context. Although TBLT has been widely discussed and well-documen-ted, a micro-evaluation of pedagogical tasks, particularly perceptual mismatches concerning task-based materials, remains rarely investigated in Asian ELT contexts. Drawing on questionnaire, class-room observation, and interview data, two finding themes were selected: (1) learning goals and taskdesign and (2) focus on meaning and negotiation of meaning (with incidental focus on form) becausethey addressed the research questions regarding (1) perceptual mismatches between the instructor’soriginal learning goals for TBLT materials and (2) the students’ interpretation of the materials-in-action and teacher–student and student–student interactions during the task-based lesson. Beforechronicling the findings derived from the classroom observation and interview data, the question-naire results are presented.

Students’ response to the task-based lesson: questionnaire results

The general goal of the lesson was to lead SS to negotiate meaning and to negotiate agreementsthrough the analysis of an authentic legal case related to the ownership of livestock (i.e. a pet pig) ina residential district (see Appendix 1). A cursory glance at the questionnaire results (providedbelow) would seem to suggest that this overall goal was reached Figure 1.

The results shown above indicate that most students either strongly agreed or agreed with itemsrelated to a focus on meaning (Part I, Item 1), a need to use language in an original way in order toexpress opinions (Part I, Item 2), and a need to negotiate meaning (Part I, Item 5). However, the resultsalso indicate that approximately 22% of the learners (6 out of 29) focused more on ‘language form’than on ‘meaning and message’ (Part 1, Item 1). Ultimately, then, as the essential element of a task isthe primacy of meaning, the tasks were not tasks for 22% of the learners.

The forthcoming data analysis will reveal the general trend of the learners’ focus on meaning,negotiation of meaning, and use of language in an original way, with exceptions being taken intoaccount and discussed along the way. The phenomenon of the tasks not being tasks for some stu-dents will be further addressed in the conclusions of this study.

Figure 1. Questionnaire results.

INNOVATION IN LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING 7

Learning goals and task design

The general focus on meaning, negotiation of meaning, and original use of language is reflected inrecorded classroom conversations – as indicated by the following excerpt from the warm-upactivity:

1) S1: The best or the worst: What is it?2) S2 [appointed as group leader]: The worst is snake.3) S1: So what about pig. Pig is… .4) S3: Are you crazy? You… you… .5) S1: No, no, no, no. I think it’s that kind of pig it smell very bad, and… .6) S2: But I think if it’s a pet pig it’s the kind that never grow up.7) S1: What kind of pig?8) S2 [slowly and deliberately]: The kind of pig that never grows up.

Excerpt #1: students discussing the best or the worst pet (in-class discussion #1, 19 May 2017)

Clearly, the students’ emphasis in this segment is on meaning. S2 (Line 1) feels that the snakeis the worst pet. S1, on the other hand, does her best to turn the conversation to the undesir-able nature of pigs as pets, a point which she accentuates with the phrase ‘No, no, no, no’(Line 5). Not quite satisfied, S2 throws in a challenge (see Line 6). But since his point is notunderstood, negotiation of meaning takes place in Lines 6–8, with S2 resorting to a verycareful paraphrase of his sentence in Line 6. S2’s paraphrase indicates the type of ‘interac-tional modifications’ that provide learners with ‘opportunities to modify and restructuretheir interaction with their interlocutors until mutual comprehension is reached’ (Kumaravadi-velu 1994, 34).

Incidentally, although the questionnaire revealed a general agreement that the lesson focusedmore on meaning and less on form, and although transcripts from the lesson and from focusgroup interviews appeared to support this finding, not all members of the focus group believedthat such a focus should be the case. When the EO elicited opinions concerning the warm-up activity,the following exchange took place:

1) EXTERNAL OBSERVER (EO): So…what do you think? So… did you focus on meaning (ideas) orlanguage or both?

2) S1: I focus more on meaning… yes.3) EO: Yes. Why?4) S1: I pay more attention to my oral speaking. I think language is just a kind of tool to make

people understand us.5) EO: As long as your classmates understand you, that’s OK.6) S1: Yes. I don’t… I don’t pay much attention to grammar.7) S2: Yeah.8) EO: And how about you, Tracy.9) S3: I focus more on meaning. And if you focus on vocabulary, or grammar, or pronunciation, I

think the communication will be less (laughs).10) EO: Break down.11) S4: And I think much about pronunciation because I think if you pronounce the word for the… .12) EO: Wow. That’s very interesting.13) S4: Well… or better, it can be understand your meaning in the sentence more. But if you have

bad pronunciation, maybe I don’t want to listen to what you say.(laughter from S1–S3)

8 J. HARPER AND H. P. WIDODO

Excerpt #2: meaning or form-focused speaking (FGD #1, 19 May 2017)

S1 and S3 appear happy with a task design that concentrates on meaning. S4, obviously holding adifferent view from those of her fellow sub-group members, reflects in her comments a pointmade above – specifically, that TBLT does not necessarily have to focus entirely on meaning butmay include a focus on form. Ellis (2009) stresses that a focus on form may and often does includevocabulary and pronunciation. S4 indirectly suggests that she would be happier with focused tasksand not unfocused tasks. The former, according to Ellis (2009), ‘are designed to provide opportunitiesfor communicating using some specific linguistic feature’ while the latter are intended to provide‘opportunities for using language in general communicatively’ (223).

While S4 seemed to suggest that some task designs (i.e. unfocused tasks) did not fit her learningstyle, another participant, one of the most proficient English speakers in the class, seemed less thanenthusiastic about the presence of the necessary gap in task design. This participant seemed to feelthat the presence of a gap simply complicated matters. Additionally, she noted that a lexical gap inher own repertoire prevented her from expressing her thoughts clearly. These concerns becameapparent in her focus group comments on the warm-up activity:

1) S: If I don’t take a class, I will prefer to say that the topic of ideal pet is not worth discussionbecause… .

2) EO: Why?3) S: Because… uhmm… for many people… uhmm…what called ideal is different… and I can’t

find a suitable word to describe what kind of pet is ideal for me.

Excerpt #3: discussion topic preference (FGD #2, 19 May 2017)

And in her comments concerning the task of providing an oral summary of a reading, the speakeragain suggested that the presence of gaps – whether in terms of negotiation of meaning or interms of linguistic resources--led to unnecessary complications:

1) EO: How much did you enjoy oral summary? Because… uhh… does [the instructor] always askyou to do oral summary?

2) S1–S3: Yes.3) EO: Do you like it?4) S1 [same student who commented on ideal pet]: I don’t like oral summary.5) EO: Why?6) S1: Because it is hard for me to summarize. It is not that… uhh… . I think it’s too long… it’s so

long that you ask me to summarize it in a few words… I think… oh, my God… it’s too hard. But… uhh… summary maybe can make me more clear about the main point… .

Excerpt #4: learning task preference (FGD #3, 19 May 2017)

These two excerpts (Excerpts #3 and #4) indicate that the learner is not comfortable with gaps – withsituations that require her to negotiate differences of opinion with classmates or to rely on her ownlinguistic and/or non-linguistic resources in carrying out a group task. In cooperative tasks based onthe concept of experiential learning, ‘[c]onflict, differences, and disagreement are what drive thelearning process’ (Kolb and Kolb 2005, 194). However, as many commentators have pointed out,the ability to work in teams cannot automatically be assumed of all learners (see Dovey 2006;Dörnyei 1997; Ellis 2003). One interpretation of the learner’s situation, then, would be that she hasnot received adequate training in the skills of ‘leadership, decision-making, trust building, communi-cation, and conflict-management’ – that is, in skills required for effective teamwork (Dörnyei 1997,

INNOVATION IN LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING 9

484). Yet another interpretation may lie in a lack of tolerance for ambiguity, a built-in feature of theprocess focus of experiential learning (see Kolb and Kolb 2005). The student in question is not com-fortable with the ambiguous nature of the term ideal (see Excerpt #3), nor is she comfortable workingwith her fellow group members to piece together the main points of a reading text through a processthat calls for some uncertainty (see Excerpt #4). Viewed from this perspective, the learner’s skepticismconcerning activities with gaps may reflect inadequate training in the skill of adopting ‘a flexibleapproach to learning’ (Ellis 2005, 220).

Ultimately, S4’s apparent lack of enthusiasm for the given tasks could be explained through asimple law of averages. Not all students will be engaged with every learning task (see Lee 2015; Tom-linson 2013a). However, as Tomlinson (2011) points out, the designer of materials (and, by extension,of lessons based on those materials) ‘needs to know as much as possible about the target learnersand about what is likely to attract their attention’ (8–9) (see Widodo 2015b). Logically, then, Excerpts#3 and #4 would seem to reveal not only that S4 lacks training in regard to experiential learningapproaches but also that her own preferred learning style and her particular orientation towardlanguage study (e.g. correctness-oriented, fluency-oriented, etc.) have not been adequately takeninto account (see Karabuga 2015; Lee 2015; Skehan 2002).

Focus on meaning and negotiation of meaning (with incidental focus on form)

The preceding section would seem to indicate that, with some exceptions, the lesson objectives offocusing on meaning and negotiating meaning were met when ‘materials-in-action’ were takeninto account. As a case in point, one student from Excerpt #2 (S3 in Line 9) pointed out the following:‘[I]f you focus on vocabulary, or grammar, or pronunciation, I think the communication will be less.’Additionally, during FGD exchanges not presented above, students repeatedly used the word seldomin answer to a question regarding their preoccupation with word-for-word analysis in the assignedreading task. Clearly, learners seemed to agree with the assertion that ‘meaning-focused activities’allow for ‘skill improvement’ (Nation 2007, 9). Nevertheless, a consideration of in-class discussiondata revealed (1) that a focus on form, even in an unfocused task, was prevalent when studentshad more time to prepare and (2) that occurrences of negotiation of meaning decreased in pro-portion to decreased preparation time.

As mentioned earlier, one task given during the lesson asked students to watch an authentic videoconcerning the advantages and disadvantages of raising a pet pig. The stated goal of the task was thefollowing: To encourage SS to negotiate meaning in working together to answer comprehension ques-tions. After watching the video twice, students worked in groups to answer four comprehensionquestions. In addressing the question of what pot-bellied pigs can be trained to do, one groupcarried out the following conversation:

1) S1 [appointed as group leader]: Next question.2) S2: OK.3) S3: Play with toys.4) S1: Play toys.5) S3: And get used to the leash.6) S1 [seemingly responding to a S4’s doubt]: The second [question]. What can it be trained to do?7) S4: Uh… to walk with you… .8) S1: Walk with you. Yes.9) S4: On a lesh [lɛʃ]

10) S3: Walk on a leash [liʃ].11) S4: On a leash [liʃ].12) S1: OK.13) S4: Play with toys.14) S1: Play with toys. Yes.

10 J. HARPER AND H. P. WIDODO

15) S3: As one-year-old child do.16) S1 [obviously looking at photo from S3’s cell phone]: Your… ?17) S3: My niece.18) S4: Ne… ne… .19) S2: Nephew, nephew.20) S1: Naughty.21) S3: No. Cute.22) S1: Naughty. But thanks. It’s lovely.23) S3: Yes. Just one year old. When he becomes two years old, he will become more…more

person, movable, moving.24) S1: OK. So…more active.

Excerpt #5: negotiating meaning (in-class discussion #2, 19 May 2017)

The students involved in this exchange are not entirely on task, thus providing an instance of learners’ability to ‘switch instantly from on-task institutional talk to off-task social talk’ (Seedhouse 2005, 537;see also Bailey 1996). In spite of going slightly off task, the group members demonstrate a concernwith form. When, in Line 3, S3 says ‘play with toys,’ the appointed group leader (i.e. S1) incorrectlyrepeats the comment, saying simply ‘play toys.’ By the time the phrase is repeated in Line 13, theleader has obviously realized her mistake. She thus correctly repeats S4’s comment ‘play withtoys.’ Also, a concern with pronunciation appears, with S3 (Line 10) correcting S4’s mispronunciationof the word leash and prompting S4 to repeat the word with the correct pronunciation. Finally, aconcern with vocabulary presents itself. When S3 (Line 17) refers to his male relative as ‘my niece,’S4 notices the problem but cannot form the correction, thus leaving the job to S2, who correctly pro-vides the term nephew.

Such an unprompted focus on form as that described above would seem to support the argumentthat ‘[a]ttention to form, in one way or another, can occur in any (or indeed all) of the phases of a task-based lesson’ (Ellis 2003, 260; see also Ellis 2010). As Excerpt #5 indicates, a focus on form may occureven in unfocused tasks – that is, even when the instructor (i.e. the designer of the task and of thelesson plan) has not given special priority to form. Seedhouse (2005) discusses a case in which the‘task-as-workplan was radically affected by group dynamics’ (538). Although the case described inthe preceding extract does not necessarily reveal a radical difference between task-as-workplanand task-in-process, it does reveal that learners, ultimately, may take a task into their own handsand modify it as they see fit. In doing so, they may ‘follow their own “internal syllabus’’ and decideto deal with the language items most relevant to them – with or without specific guidance towardthose language items (Ellis 2010, 45; see also Skehan 1998).

Excerpt #5, incidentally, also provides interesting examples of negotiation of meaning – eventhough the first attempt at such negotiation only results in compromise. Once the niece/nephew dis-tinction is cleared up, S1 (Line 20) describes the nephew as ‘naughty.’ S3, no doubt in an attempt totake up for his nephew, rejects the term and, in Line 21, gives his opinion: ‘No, cute.’ S1, sticking to heroriginal opinion, repeats the word naughty but allows for a compromise: ‘But thanks. It’s lovely.’ S3,probably the best speaker of English in the group, then produces an uncharacteristically nonstandardsentence, saying that his nephew at two years of age ‘will become more…more person, movable,moving’ (Line 23). S1, then, clearly understanding S3’s meaning, clarifies the point by summarizingwith ‘OK. So…more active’ (Line 24). Thus, the slightly unusual description of the nephew isrecast in a more idiomatic way.

Excerpt #5 shows that, in the lesson evaluated here, a focus on meaning was the predominantfeature, with negotiation of meaning also taking on a high priority and focus on form, though notrequired, also receiving a great deal of attention. It is perhaps not surprising, however, that a purefocus on meaning, with an almost complete disregard for negotiation of meaning and focus on

INNOVATION IN LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING 11

form, came to the forefront when spontaneity was critical. Such was the case during the debate phaseof the lesson – as the following excerpt will reveal:

S1, S3 (SIDE A: Amend the ordinance and let the Schuiling family keep the pig.)S2, S4, S5 (SIDE B: Do not amend the ordinance and do not let the Schuiling family keep the pig.)

1) S1: Compared to tigers, pig is not so… uh… aggressive.2) S2: Our focus… uh… definition… you have… uh… the definition of a pet.3) S3: The animal can be trained… can be trained… and they will… not very aggressive… can be

regard as a pet.4) S4: What about before training?5) S5: When you… uh…when you have the pet and you keep it in your house and you train the

pet in your home,… .6) S4: You use a long time to train it.7) S1: But if you raise a dog,… .8) S3: Yeah, a big dog.9) S1: You… you allow a long time to train it.

10) S4: But some common pets… like cats or dogs… .You can’t deny that pigs are rare… they arerare. So… uh… it may scare people when you walk it on the street.

11) S1: But someone are afraid of dogs. Many of my friends are afraid of dogs.12) S2: Many people are afraid of pigs!13) S3: No, no. Why? They are very cute.14) S1: No, but… uh… .15) S3: It’s a common animal so… not… not the same as the tiger… so it will not make people

afraid of it.16) S4: If you amend the audience [i.e. ordinance] in this case, it will encourage other people to do

the same thing. If this situation grows big, how can you suppose to control it? It may… uhmm… come to many new problems… like you don’t have mature health care.

17) S1: But the audience [i.e. ordinance] should be changed… should be changed. It needs tochange. It is changing because time is changed, so ordinance should be changed. Andpeople are changed.

Excerpt #6: board meeting members (in-class discussion #3, 19 May 2017)

The striking aspect of this exchange, compared to those in other extracts, is the complete absence ofnegotiation of meaning and focus on form, and it should be noted that all of the recorded BoardMeeting debates of the lesson followed a similar pattern. Granted, the extract above does showone instance of self-correction (hence, a focus on form). S4 (Line 16) uses the term audienceinstead of ordinance. Following suit, S1 (Line 17) first uses the word audience but later self-correctsand pronounces the term ordinance. This one instance suggests that the students involved in theexchange are not necessarily oblivious to language form but are simply more interested in drivinghome their meanings in order to gain an advantage in the debate. In other words, the nature ofthe task seems to call for the putting aside of other aspects of language learning in order to give pre-ference to a pure focus on meaning.

As the Board Meeting served as the main task of the lesson, it might be said to fall into what Nation(2007) refers to as the fluency development strand of language learning. By the time of the debate,learners had already become familiar with vocabulary which, beforehand, might have beenunknown to them (e.g. amend, ordinance). Also, the topic of pets had been discussed during all ofthe preceding activities, and the topic of pig ownership had been at the center of the readingtask, the listening task, and the pre-task preparation for the Board Meeting. Viewed in such a light,the main task would appear to have led learners to make use of newly acquired knowledge and

12 J. HARPER AND H. P. WIDODO

to put into practice the previously existing components of their respective linguistic repertoires. Inother words, the urgency called for in the debate, along with the students’ familiarity with debatecontent, created a situation in which the main task naturally became a fluency activity.

Pedagogical implications

Our findings have three pedagogical implications: (1) learning goals as a shared vision, (2) task designas the optimization of student engagement, and (3) negotiation of meaning as knowledge co-con-struction. To begin with, it is important for teachers and students to negotiate learning goals as ashared vision. This shared vision can build learning ownership because students are entrusted tomake a decision on what, how, and why to learn (Dörnyei and Kubanyiova 2013). For this reason,in the implementation of task-based learning goals, teachers can spell out their expectations atthe beginning of the class, and they can encourage students to voice their interests and needs.Because both teachers and students play a crucial role in policing classroom agendas, such asmaterials, shared visions need to be negotiated as an articulated classroom policy (Widodo 2017).

Secondly, teachers are task designers who are responsible for maximizing student learning experi-ence and for fostering student engagement in different learning tasks. In our finding, one of the par-ticipants was concerned about the task of oral summary as a cognitively and linguistically demandingtask. This suggests a pre-task cycle, which puts emphasis on providing students with sufficient lin-guistic resources as they engage in the actual task. Moreover, our findings showed that most ofthe students enjoyed having in-class discussion in that they thought a discussion task as a learningplatform for enriching their linguistic resources and knowledge because they could learn from eachother. In other words, task design plays a pivotal role in optimizing students’ engagement inside andoutside of the classroom.

Lastly, task-based learning activities create a negotiation of meaning because such negotiation ispart of knowledge co-construction between teacher and students and students and their peers ordiscussion partners. In this negotiation of meaning, our findings revealed that, to some extent, stu-dents focused on incidental form because of communication breakdown. This indicates that linguisticresources, such as vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation, are a catalyst for knowledge co-construc-tion or knowledge sharing. For this reason, balancing form-focused learning tasks and meaning-focused learning tasks is badly needed inasmuch as both content and language are always inte-grated. For example, when students discuss the ideal pet as content knowledge, they needsufficient linguistic resources such as lexis or vocabulary to communicate that content knowledge.

Conclusion

This article has presented a classroom-based study on a TBLT-based English lesson in which generalEnglish and Global Law English were integrated. In this article, as our findings showed, learning goalsand task design and focus on meaning and negotiation of meaning with incidental focus on formwere two salient issues in the task-based language lesson. Nevertheless, one student did not seemto value the ideal pet as a preferred topic or oral summary as a task because of a lack of linguisticresources (see the discussion of the ideal pet) and required skills such as paraphrasing (for oralsummary). Additionally, when students were engaged in group discussion tasks, they were con-cerned with language accuracy (e.g. grammar and pronunciation). This is because the students feltthat linguistic resources (e.g. a form-focused task) played an important role in the construction ofmeaning so that meaning was easily understood. The majority of students were concerned aboutmeaning, a necessary component of the TBLT-based lesson. A full completion of the lesson,however, would have required additional steps in the task cycle: (1) an addressing of ‘problems’that learners faced during task completion and (2) an attempt at dealing with these ‘problems’through post-task activities. Logically, if such steps had been taken, and if the norms of taskimplementation throughout the course had led learners to expect these additional steps, those

INNOVATION IN LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING 13

students who emphasized form over meaning in the during-task phase of the lesson would havebeen more likely to direct their attention toward meaning while completing the task itself. The carry-ing out of these steps would no doubt have called for an adjustment in time allocation. Needless tosay, the classroom teacher and course designer will need to consider such adjustments in other TBLT-based lessons within the same course. Hence, the micro-evaluation discussed here reveals that aclose study of a particular lesson (i.e. of one piece of many in the entirety of a course) may effectivelyserve as a means of addressing issues that may relate to the course as a whole.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

John Harper is a Senior Lecturer and Associate Director of the English Language Center of Shantou University. He hasbeen involved in the ELT field for some 25 years. During that time, he has worked in Colombia, Taiwan, Peru, Mexico,and China. He has been involved in curriculum and assessment design in each country. Harper’s particular interests inELT are English for Specific Purposes, motivation, curriculum and materials design, and assessment.

Handoyo Puji Widodo has taught English in China, Indonesia, and the USA. His areas of specialization include languageteaching methodology, language curriculum and materials development, systemic functional linguistics (SFL) inlanguage education, and teacher professional development. His work has been grounded in socio-semiotic, socio-cog-nitive, sociocultural, and critical theories of language pedagogies.

References

Allwright, R. L. 1984. “Why Don’t Learners Learn What Teachers Teach? – The Interaction Hypothesis.” In LanguageLearning in Formal and Informal Contexts, edited by D. M. Singleton and D. G. Little, 3–18. Dublin: IRAAL.

Andon, N., and J. Eckerth. 2009. “Chacun a Son Gout?” Task Based L2 Pedagogy From the Teacher’s Point of View.International Journal of Applied Linguistics 10 (3): 286–310.

Bailey, K. M. 1996. “The Best-laid Plans: Teachers” In-class Decisions to Depart From Their Lesson Plans.” In Voices From theLanguage Classroom, edited by K. M. Bailey and D. Nunan, 15–40. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Block, D. 1996. “A Window on the Classroom: Classroom Events Viewed From Different Angles.” In Voices From theLanguage Classroom, edited by K. M. Bailey and D. Nunan, 168–194. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Butler, Y. G. 2011. “The Implementation of Communicative and Task-based Language Teaching in the Asia-PacificRegion.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31: 36–57.

Carless, D. R. 2003. “Factors in the Implementation of Task-based Teaching in Primary Schools.” System 31: 485–500.Carless, D. R. 2004. “Issues in Teachers” Reinterpretation of a Task-based Innovation in Primary Schools.” TESOL Quarterly

38 (4): 639–662.Cheng, X. 2000. “Asian Students” Reticence Revisited.” System 28: 435–446.Chinese Ministry of Education. 2007. College English Curriculum Requirements. Beijing: Tsinghua University Press.Crabbe, D. 2003. “The Quality of Language Learning Opportunities.” TESOL Quarterly 37 (1): 9–34.Crabbe, D. 2007. “Learning Opportunities: Adding Learning Value to Tasks.” ELT Journal 61 (2): 117–125.Dörnyei, Z. 1997. “Psychological Processes in Cooperative Language Learning: Group Dynamics and Motivation.” The

Modern Language Journal 81: 482–493.Dörnyei, Z. 2007. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methodologies. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.Dörnyei, Z., and K. Csizér. 2012. “How to Design and Analyze Surveys in Second Language Acquisition Research.” In

Research Methods in Second Language Acquisition: A Practical Guide, edited by A. Mackey and S. M. Gass, 74–94.West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

Dörnyei, Z., and M. Kubanyiova. 2013.Motivating Learners, Motivating Teachers: Building Vision in the Language Classroom.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dovey, T. 2006. “What Purposes, Specifically? Re-Thinking Purposes and Specificity in the Context of the “newVocationalism.’.” English for Specific Purposes 25: 387–402.

Ellis, R. 2003. Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Ellis, R. 2005. “Principles of Instructed Language Learning.” System 33: 209–224.Ellis, R. 2009. “Task-based Language Teaching: Sorting out the Misunderstandings.” International Journal of Applied

Linguistics 19 (3): 221–246.

14 J. HARPER AND H. P. WIDODO

Ellis, R. 2010. “Second Language Acquisition Research and Language-Teaching Materials.” In English Language TeachingMaterials: Theory and Practice, edited by N. Harwood, 36–64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, R. 2011. “Macro- and Micro-evaluations of Task-based Teaching.” In Materials Development in Language Teaching,edited by B. Tomlinson, 212–235. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Foster, P. 2009. “Task-based Language Learning Research: Expecting too Much or too Little?” International Journal ofApplied Linguistics 19 (3): 247–263.

Freeman, D. 1996. “Redefining the Relationship Between Research and What Teachers Know.” In Voices From theLanguage Classroom, edited by K. M. Bailey and D. Nunan, 88–115. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Friedman, D. A. 2012. “How to Collect and Analyze Qualitative Data.” In Research Methods in Second Language Acquisition:A Practical Guide, edited by A. Mackey and S. M. Gass, 180–200. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

García Mayo, M. P. 2002. “The Effectiveness of two Form-Focused Tasks in Advanced EFL Pedagogy.” International Journalof Applied Linguistics 12 (2): 156–175.

Gatbonton, E., and G. Gu. 1994. “Preparing and Implementing a Task-based Curriculum in an EFL Setting: Implications forTheory and Practice.” TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL du Canada 11 (2): 09–29.

Geng, X., and G. Ferguson. 2013. “Strategic Planning in Task-based Language Teaching: The Effects of ParticipatoryStructure and Task Type.” System 41: 982–993.

Guerrettaz, A. M., and B. Johnston. 2013. “Materials in the Classroom Ecology.” The Modern Language Journal 97 (3): 779–796.

Hashemi, M. R., and E. Babaii. 2013. “Mixed Methods Research: Toward New Designs in Applied Linguistics.” The ModernLanguage Journal 97 (4): 828–852.

Jenks, C. J. 2007. “Floor Management in Task-based Interaction: The Interactional Role of Participatory Structures.” System35: 609–622.

Jeon, I.-J., and J.-W. Hahn. 2006. “Exploring EFL Teachers” Perceptions of Task-based Language Teaching: A Case Study ofKorean Secondary School Classroom Practice.” Asian EFL Journal 8 (1): 123–143.

Karabuga, F. 2015. “Match or Mismatch Between Learning Styles of Prep-class EFL Students and EFL Teachers.” ElectronicJournal of Foreign Language Teaching 12 (2): 276–288.

Kim, Y., Y. Jung, and N. Tracy-Ventura. 2017. “Implementation of a Localized Task-based Course in an EFL Context: A Studyof Students” Evolving Perceptions.” TESOL Quarterly 51 (3): 632–660.

Kolb, A. Y., and D. A. Kolb. 2005. “Learning Styles and Learning Spaces: Enhancing Experiential Learning in HigherEducation.” Academy of Management 4 (2): 193–212.

Kumaravadivelu, B. 1991. “Language-learning Tasks: Teacher Intention and Learner Interpretation.” ELT Journal 45 (2):98–107.

Kumaravadivelu, B. 1994. “The Postmethod Condition: (E)Merging Strategies for Second/Foreign Language Teaching.”TESOL Quarterly 28 (1): 27–48.

Kumaravadivelu, B. 2001. “Toward a Postmethod Pedagogy.” TESOL Quarterly 35 (4): 537–560.Kumaravadivelu, B. 2006. “TESOL Methods: Changing Tracks, Challenging Trends.” TESOL Quarterly 40 (1): 59–81.Lee, B. 2015. “EFL Learners” Perspectives on ELT Materials Evaluation Relative to Learning Styles.” RELC Journal 46 (2):

147–163.Lin, T.-B., and C.-W. Wu. 2012. “Teachers” Perceptions of Task-Based Language Teaching in English Classrooms in

Taiwanese Junior High Schools.” TESOL Journal 3 (4): 586–609.Littlejohn, A. 2011. “The Analysis of Language Teaching Materials: Inside the Trojan Horse.” In Materials Development in

Language Teaching, edited by B. Tomlinson, 179–211. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Long, M. H. 1985. “A Role for Instruction: Task-based Language Teaching.” In Modeling and Assessing Second Language

Acquisition, edited by M. Pienemann and K. Hyltenstam, 77–99. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Maley, A. 2011. “Squaring the Circle – Reconciling Materials as Constraint with Materials as Empowerment.” In Materials

Development in Language Teaching, edited by B. Tomlinson, 379–402. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.McDonough, K., and W. Chaikitmongkol. 2007. “Teachers” and Learners” Reactions to a Task-based EFL Course in

Thailand.” TESOL Quarterly 41 (1): 107–132.McGrath, I. 2002. Materials Evaluation and Design for Language Teaching. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Nation, P. 2007. “The Four Strands.” Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 1 (1): 2–13. DOI:10.2167/illt039.0.Nation, I. S. P., and J. Macalister. 2010. Language Curriculum Design. New York: Routledge.Nunan, D. 1988. The Learner-Centred Curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Nunan, D. 1991. “Communicative Tasks and the Language Curriculum.” TESOL Quarterly 25 (2): 279–295.Nunan, D. 1995. “Closing the gap Between Learning and Instruction.” TESOL Quarterly 29 (1): 133–158.Nunan, D. 1996. “Hidden Voices: Insiders” Perspectives on Classroom Interaction.” In Voices From the Language Classroom,

edited by K. M. Bailey and D. Nunan, 41–56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Nunan, D. 2004. Task-based Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Peacock, M. 2001. “Match or Mismatch? Learning Styles and Teaching Styles in EFL.” International Journal of Applied

Linguistics 11 (1): 1–20.Prabhu, N. S. 1987. Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

INNOVATION IN LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING 15

Pyun, D. O. 2013. “Attitudes Toward Task-based Language Learning: A Study of College Korean Language Learners.”Foreign Language Annals 46 (1): 108–121.

Richards, J. C. 2001. Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Richards, J. C. 2013. “Curriculum Approaches in Language Teaching: Forward, Central, and Backward Design.” RELC

Journal 44 (1): 5–33.Robinson, P. 2011. “Task-based Language Learning: A Review of Issues.” Language Learning 61 (1): 1–36.Seedhouse, P. 2005. ““Task” as Research Construct.” Language Learning 55 (3): 533–570.Skehan, P. 1996. “A Framework for the Implementation of Task-Based Instruction.” Applied Linguistics 17: 38–62.Skehan, P. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Skehan, P. 2002. “A Non-marginal Role for Tasks.” ELT Journal 56 (3): 289–295.Tomlinson, B. 2011. “Introduction: Principles and Procedures of Materials Development.” In Materials Development in

Language Teaching, edited by B. Tomlinson, 1–31. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Tomlinson, B. 2012. “Materials Development for Language Learning and Teaching.” Language Teaching 45 (2): 143–179.Tomlinson, B. 2013a. “Developing Principled Frameworks for Materials Development.” In Developing Materials for

Language Teaching, edited by B. Tomlinson, 96–118. London: Bloomsbury.Tomlinson, B. 2013b. “Materials Evaluation.” In Developing Materials for Language Teaching, edited by B. Tomlinson, 21–

48. London: Bloomsbury.Van den Branden, K. 2009. “Mediating Between Predetermined Order and Chaos: The Role of the Teacher in Task-based

Language Education.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 19 (3): 264–285.Watson Todd, R. 2006. “Continuing Change After the Innovation.” System 34: 1–14.Widodo, H. P. 2012. “The Use of Complaint Letters as an Authentic Source of Input for an Interactive Task in Second

Language Learning.” Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching 9 (2): 245–258.Widodo, H. P. 2015a. “Designing and Implementing Task-Based Vocational English Materials: Text, Language, Task, and

Context in Indonesia.” In Contemporary Task-Based Language Teaching in Asia, edited by M. Thomas and H. Reinders,291–312. London: Bloomsbury.

Widodo, H. P. 2015b. “The Development of Vocational English Materials from a Social Semiotic Perspective: ParticipatoryAction Research.” Unpublished Ph.D thesis, the University of Adelaide, Australia.

Widodo, H. P. 2017. “Constructing and Negotiating Agency and Identity of English Language Learners: Teacher-learnerDriven ESP Materials Development in the Indonesian Secondary School Context.” Electronic Journal of ForeignLanguage Teaching 14: 233–249.

Widodo, H. P., and Savova, L. Eds. 2010. The Lincom Guide to Materials Design in ELT. Muenchen, Germany: Lincom Europa.Wong, R. M. H. 2011. “‘Try to Describe the Main Point of Your Lesson.’: Student Perception and Identification of Learning

Objectives in English Lessons.” Reflections on English Language Teaching 8 (2): 73–88.

16 J. HARPER AND H. P. WIDODO

Appendices

Appendix 1. Instructor goals

INNOVATION IN LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING 17

Appendix 2. External observer observation notes

Log of Activities Observed1) Warm-up activity (The Ideal Pet): The teacher commenced the class by asking the students two descriptive and critical

questions: What kinds of animals are commonly kept as pets? and what are the qualities of a good pet? These questionsscaffolded the students to critically think of the ideal pet. Then, in groups, the students worked together to choose froma list of seven possible pets: a rabbit, a parrot, a snake, a duck, a pig, a cat, and a goldfish, the most desirable and at leastdesirable pet. Following this group discussion, the students reported their decisions along with good reasons(reasoning skills) to the class.

2) Reading of legal case: The students individually read the case and then in small groups orally summarize the mainpoints. The teacher listed key words, such as ordinance, livestock, residential district, and amend. This lexical scaffoldinghelped the students learn new words that relate to the reading text.

3) Repeated listening: The students watched Sue Clavin’s talk about having pot-bellied pets as pets. After this listening,they responded to four questions, and they were asked to compare their answers with those of their partner.Afterwards, the teacher gave the students another chance to watch the video to confirm the answers. This repeatedlistening served as task scaffolding, which enhanced students’ understanding of the spoken text.

4) The board meeting: The students in small groups worked together to form arguments on each of two positions in thecase “Family Fights to Keep Pet Pig:” (1) Amend the ordinance and let the Schuiling family keep the pig or Do notamend the ordinance and do not let the Schuiling family keep the pig. The students moved on to argue in favor of theposition assigned. The students were told to report what they discussed and express their real opinion on whether toamend the ordinance or not. During the board meeting, a lot of negotiation encounters took place among the students.I observed that two groups of the students engaged in more dialogic discussion.

Evaluative Reflections:1) Warm-up activity (The Ideal Pet): The students focused on discussing unusual pets. They negotiated the meanings of

why such unusual animals had to be kept as pets. In this group discussion, the students built a social tie because theyshared ideas on the topic discussed with each other. They reached a consensus on the ideal pet.

2) Reading of legal case: The students shared what the read with each other. They talked about the meanings of the keyvocabulary learned. They listed and discussed some key points necessary for an oral summary. In groups, theynegotiated who would give an oral summary on behalf of the group.

3) Listening: The students listened attentively to the spoken text. They made some notes. After viewing the video, thestudents worked on the listening comprehension questions. They negotiated meaning to find appropriate answers tothe questions.

4) The board meeting: The teacher created a supportive learning atmosphere which facilitated dialogic meaning-focusedgroup discussion while providing the students with new vocabulary resources related to the written and spoken textsthat the students were learning.

In general, the students were actively involved in a variety of learning tasks that encouraged them to engage in anegotiation of meaning although they discussed the use of language incidentally to some extent.

18 J. HARPER AND H. P. WIDODO

Appendix 3. Micro-evaluation questionnaire

INNOVATION IN LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING 19

本文献由“学霸图书馆-文献云下载”收集自网络，仅供学习交流使用。

学霸图书馆（www.xuebalib.com）是一个“整合众多图书馆数据库资源，

提供一站式文献检索和下载服务”的24 小时在线不限IP

图书馆。

图书馆致力于便利、促进学习与科研，提供最强文献下载服务。

图书馆导航：

图书馆首页 文献云下载 图书馆入口 外文数据库大全 疑难文献辅助工具