Tblt Korea

Soo Ha (Sue) Yim 29

SouthKoreanTeachers’Perceptionsof

TBLT

SooHa(Sue)Yim

Samsung Art and Design Institute

Abstract

This small scale case study investigates EFL teachers’ perceptions of task-based language teaching (TBLT) in South Korea. The study (1) presents an overview of TBLT; (2) investigates EFL teachers’ views of TBLT in the South Korean context; and (3) addresses issues which need further attention if TBLT is to be adequately implemented in South Korea. In this study, 10 EFL teachers in South Korea were inter-viewed and asked on their opinions on using TBLT in their classrooms. The findings centered around five themes, the first being positive and the rest being negative: (a) increase in class participation, (b) in-compatibility with text-centered exams, (c) time constraints, (d) lack of language proficiency, and (e) lack of support. Based on the findings, suggestions on how to implement TBLT into the South Korean context are addressed as well as areas that need further research.

Keywords: Task-based language teaching, task-based materials, EFL curriculum, EFL policy

I.Introduction

Since the mid-1990s the Ministry of Education in South Korea has

strongly encouraged its teachers to use communicative and task-based

teaching when teaching English (KICE, 2008). The National Curriculum

explicitly states English classes are to be student-centered, activity cen-

tered and lessons-centered and should be conducted in English (ibid.).

However, many public school teachers continue to have teacher-domi-

30 South Korean Teachers’ Perceptions of TBLT

nated lessons with explicit text explanations (Nam, 2005). The motivation

behind this small scale study was to investigate this contrast between

educational policy and classroom practices. This study aims to understand

South Korean teachers’ perceptions of TBLT. It seeks to answer the

following questions:

(1) How do English teachers in South Korea perceive task-based

language teaching?

(2) Why do English teachers in South Korea choose to use or not

use task-based language teaching in their classes?

II.LiteratureReview

2.1 Definition of TBLT

TBLT is a communicative approach to language teaching, in which

tasks are used to facilitate language acquisition (Ellis, 2003; Nunan,

2004). Although there is no single definition of task, most studies agree

that the main feature is expressing meaning (Richards & Rodgers, 2001;

Ellis, 2003; Nunan, 2004; Long & Robinson 1998; McDonough &

Chaikitmongkol, 2007). Bygate, Skehan, and Swain (2001) provide

a pedagogical description of task: “an activity, susceptible to brief or

extended pedagogic intervention, which requires learners to use language,

with emphasis on meaning, to attain an objective” (p. 11). Nunan (2004)

describes a task as “a piece of classroom work which involves learners

in comprehending, manipulating, producing or interacting in the target

language while their attention is principally focused on meaning rather

than form.” (p. 10).

According to Skehan (as cited in Kumaravadivelu, 2006, p. 65),

there are two extremes of tasks: structure oriented tasks and communica-

tively oriented tasks. The structure oriented approach, also referred

to as the weak form of TBLT (Skehan, 2007; McDonough &

Chaikitmongkol, 2007), emphasizes the linguistic form, while the com-

municatively oriented approach, also referred to as the strong form

of TBLT (ibid.), emphasizes meaning over form.

Soo Ha (Sue) Yim 31

Proponents of TBLT argue that through tasks, learners’ attention

is drawn to linguistic form in the context of meaning, that is, focus

on form (McDonough & Chaikitmongkol, 2007). Focus on forms involves

analyzing linguistic items out of context and focus on meaning does

not involve analysis (Long & Robinson, 1998). With focus on form,

communication of meaning is of prime concern and linguistic items

are analyzed in the context of meaning (ibid.). Meaning-based activities

are done first and are then followed by attention to the linguistic features.

Such attention to linguistic analysis in a meaning-based approach is

argued to reflect the cognitive learning processes found in real life

situations (Richards & Rodgers, 2001; Willis & Willis, 2001) and to

facilitate L2 learning (Skehan, 2007; Ellis, 2001). Skehan (2007) explains

that the weak form of TBLT facilitates language knowledge (or

‘competence') and performance and the strong form facilitates movement

through developmental stages (p. 60). In both cases, tasks promote

language learning.

2.2 TBLT in EFL Contexts

Much of the research on TBLT has been in an ESL context, but

it has received an increase in interest from EFL countries in recent

years, particularly after attempts to implement communicative language

teaching (CLT) have been met with resistance and varying degrees

of success (Li, 1998; Bax, 2003; Ellis, 1996; Littlewood, 2007).

Nevertheless, implementation of TBLT in EFL contexts has not been

without its difficulties.

In countries where teacher-fronted classes are the norm, both students

and teachers may need some time to adjust to the interactive approach

of TBLT, as found in McDonough and Chaikitmongkol’s (2007) study

of a task-based EFL course in Thailand. The teachers in their study

were not confident in their ability to implement the course and expressed

concerns about having to deal with unanticipated situations and questions,

something which is more common in student-centered lessons. The

students reported more grammar instruction and target language forms

were needed in their task-based course. They also wanted more teacher

support and guidance.


Perceptions of the purpose of task-based learning may also differ.

In a study of three EFL primary classes in Turkey, İlïn, İnözü, and

Yumru (2007) point out that the tasks used in the classes they observed

were predominately language practice activities focusing on form rather

than meaning. The teachers in their study were aware of the purpose

of task-based learning, but used tasks at the end of lessons to present

language items because this was expected.

Ho and Wong (as cited in Littlewood, 2007, p. 246) also report

that approaches such as TBLT, which originates from the West, can

be incompatible with public assessment demands and conflict with educa-

tional values and traditions in non-western contexts.

Despite some problems in implementing TBLT in EFL contexts,

these studies also recognize the benefits of the approach and report

that teachers and students have generally responded positively. They

acknowledge the importance of TBLT in developing learner autonomy

and transferable skills (McDonough & Chaikitmongkol, 2007) and pro-

viding opportunities for students to practice using English (Ho & Wong,

as cited in Littlewood, 2007, p. 246). The use of tasks can also be

adapted to review taught linguistic items (İlïn, İnözü, & Yumru, 2007).

The positive results from these studies look promising, but further research

of TBLT in the EFL context is needed for more conclusive results.

2.3 TBLT in South Korea

Research in TBLT in South Korea has increased in recent years,

but remains sparse. The research that is available has been at the high

school and university level and there is no known research at lower

levels, at least to this writer. This lack of research is surprising, particularly

since the Ministry of Education in South Korea has been encouraging

its public school English teachers to use communicative and task-based

instructions in class since the mid-1990s (KICE, 2008). In the 6th National

Curriculum (1995-1999), the Ministry of Education has replaced the

grammatical-structural syllabus with a communicative syllabus and

placed greater importance on the spoken form (Paik, 2005; Yim, 2003;

Chang, 2004). In a continual effort to shift from the still prevalent

grammar and text oriented English education, the 7th National Curriculum

Soo Ha (Sue) Yim 33

(2000-2006) reiterated the previous curriculum’s emphasis on spoken

English and provided specific guidelines in the structure of the syllabus

(Chang, 2002). Nevertheless, teacher-centered classes focused on written

form remains common (Nam, 2005).

Perhaps more far-reaching than the National Curriculum is the annual

Korean Scholastic Aptitude Test (KSAT), the scores from which de-

termine its test takers’ future education and career opportunities. Since

the English section of this high stakes exam does not involve actual

direct speaking or writing components, high school teachers are reported

to spend little time on developing productive skills (Choi, 2008), even

though this is in direct conflict with the communicative and task-based

approaches prescribed in the National Curriculum. English high school

classes focus almost solely on preparing students for this exam, within

which reading comprehension weighs most heavily (ibid.). Teachers

are thus pressured by students, parents and school authorities to ignore

the mandates of the National Curriculum and teach to the test (Shim

& Baik, as cited in Littlewood, 2007, p. 246). The multiple-choice

format of the KSAT and other EFL tests is reported to have the negative

backwash effect of South Korean students wanting to improve test

taking strategies at the expense of gaining genuine language proficiency

(Choi, 2008). Not surprisingly, the discrepancy between the guidelines

of the National Curriculum and the need to prepare students for the

national exams raises issues about how to use a TBLT approach in

the South Korean setting.

The studies that have examined TBLT in the South Korean context

have had mixed results. In her report of South Korean college students’

reaction to TBLT, Ko (2008) advocates the advantages of its collaborative

learning style. However, her research findings show that college students

were reluctant to participate in group work. She reports that most English

classes at the high school and university level in South Korea are usually

teacher-fronted and focus on reading comprehension, grammar, and

sentence transformation. The students in her study complained about

the large number of tasks and the amount of time required to complete

them. They felt that having the teacher directly teach the language

points would be a better use of time. Furthermore, the students were

unsure they could trust their answers and wanted concrete input from


the teacher after their discussions. Ko suggests adapting TBLT to the

local South Korean context, so that lessons contain both a student and

teacher-centered element, reducing the number of tasks, and allowing

enough time for both the students and teachers to get familiar with

the approach.

Park (1999) acknowledges the importance of activities involving

negotiation of meaning. However, he questions its usefulness in EFL

settings where written test results are more important than communicative

ability. As mentioned earlier, English tests results in South Korea have

a significant role in its test takers’ educational and work opportunities

(Choi, 2008). Park (1999) argues that in South Korea there may be

little motivation to improve one’s productive skills. Even English teachers

reported they lacked spoken English and avoided using it in class (Li,

1998).

To deal with the deficiency in spoken English, Lee (2006) suggests

using L1 with task-based lessons. In her study with high school students,

the students reported feeling that they lacked the English proficiency

to complete the tasks and to interact in groups. She points out the

usefulness in using the mother tongue to negotiate, check understanding

and compare answers in task-based lessons. Other constraints include

large class size, large amount of textbook material that needs to be

covered in class, and lack of authentic material (Choi, 2000).

With regards to tasks in South Korean high school English textbooks,

Jeon (2005) reports that the task-based material reflected a communicative

approach to language learning in accordance with the regulations of

the 7th National Curriculum. However, his data show that about 80%

of tasks are completed individually, and only 15% are done in pairs

and 5% in small groups. With such a large number of tasks to be

completed individually, Jeon’s data do not support his claims that the

textbooks reflect a communicative approach.

III.Method

3.1 Subjects

Ten participants were involved in this small scale case study. They

Soo Ha (Sue) Yim 35

were experienced ELT teachers doing their master’s in an ELT related

field. They were all native speakers of Korean with an intermediate

to advanced level of English proficiency. They ranged from the ages

of 25 and 36. Their teaching experience varied from 1 to 8.5 years,

with an average of over 5 years. Eight of them had experience teaching

at a public school in South Korea, with three of them at a middle

school, three at a high school, and another two at both. Two of the

participants had taught elementary and middle school students at a

private language institute, and one had taught at a middle school and

a private language institute.

TABLE 1

Background of survey participants

Participant

SexTeaching experience

Type of schoolGrade/type of class and length of time

Standard of students

Total years

1 F Private lg school TOEFL (6M) Average 1

Middle school Various (6M) Average

2 F Middle school G2 & G3 (4Y) Above average 5.5

High school G3 (1.5Y) Average

3 M High schoolG1 (3.5Y), G2 (4Y), G3 (4Y)

Above average 8

4 F Private lg school Gr, GE, TOEIC (2.5Y) Average 2.5

5 F Middle school G1 (3Y), G2 (1Y) Average 4.5

High school G1 (6M) Average

6 F Middle schoolG1 (1Y), G2 (4Y), G3 (2Y)

Average 7

7 F High school G1 (1Y), G3 (5.5Y)Below average/Average

6.5

8 F Private lg schoolGr, R&W (1.5Y), R, S&L (1.5Y), iBT TOEFL (2Y)

Average/Aboveaverage

5

9 F High school G1 (8Y), G3 (6M) Above average 8.5

10 F Middle schoolG1 (1Y), G2 (1Y), G3 (6M)

Below average 2.5

In South Korea, there are 3 grades in middle school and in high school. The

American equivalent would be grade 7, 8, and 9 for middle school and grade

10, 11, and 12 for high school. (lg = language, G = grade, GE = general

English, Gr = grammar, R = reading, W = writing, S = Speaking, L = listening)


3.2 Procedures

The data in this research paper are from semi-structured interviews

with ten participants. An initial list of interview questions was made

and used in a pilot interview. The questions began with broad general

questions and narrowed down to more specific ones to avoid being

too direct and leading, while also putting the participants at ease early

on the interview (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007). The interview

questions were clear, open-ended and non-directive to allow participants

to answer freely and to avoid influencing their responses (Mackey &

Gass, 2005). A sample list of questions can be found in Appendix 1.

An email was sent to the 89 students attending the master’s program,

requesting volunteers to participate in the research. Sixteen responded,

but only ten interviews were used in this study. All sixteen respondents

were interviewed, but five of the interviews were discarded as the

participants did not have adequate teaching experience to be able to

answer the questions. The other participants had at least one year of

teaching experience with the same set of either middle school or high

school students in a classroom setting for at least one term. The recording

for one interview was lost and the data from that interview was not

included in this research.

As the participants’ first language was Korean, they were told to

feel free to use their mother tongue or code-switch whenever they

wanted so as to not be linguistically disadvantaged or reduce the quality

of the data they provided. However, all of them chose to speak in

English. To make the participants as comfortable as possible the inter-

views were carried out in the familiar setting of their classrooms (Cohen,

Manion, & Morrison, 2007). The interviews were semi-structured and

conducted in a systematic and consistent order. This allowed the inter-

viewer to guide the conversation, and to probe further, digress, and

clarify answers (Mackey & Gass, 2005).

All the interviews, which lasted an average of 21 minutes, were

recorded and transcribed verbatim to allow repetitive listening and in

depth analysis. The data and participants remained confidential and

were assigned a non-recognizable identification number. Only the re-

searcher had access to the data, but participants were given the option

Soo Ha (Sue) Yim 37

to verify it at any time.

Due to the nonrandom selection of interviews and the limited scope

and depth of the interviews, the data in this research report assignment

does not necessarily adequately reflect the views of all EFL teachers

in South Korea. They are only the opinions of those ten participants,

but they may resonate with the views of others.

After conducting all the interviews, the data was analyzed. An in-

ductive approach was taken in which general themes emerged from

the data rather than being predefined and tested beforehand (Cohen,

Manion, & Morrison, 2007). However, data from the pilot interview

and my prior knowledge about TBLT and the Korean education system

provided some awareness of the issues that may be addressed.

Recurrent themes and salient comments emerged from the data

analysis. Each transcript was analyzed to identify sections that pertained

to these themes. Data from the different participants were pooled and

analyzed further. This disassembling and reassembling of the data allowed

me to identify evidence that could support or disconfirm some theories

(Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007). The data and categories were

then reanalyzed and refined by grouping related themes and renaming

them. These themes were then further reanalyzed and regrouped into

five themes as shown in Table 2. The number of times the participants

referred to these new themes in the interviews was recorded.

IV.Results

All ten South Korean teachers were familiar with TBLT, at least

at the theoretical level, having studied it on their MA program. Five

participants had experience using the approach, of which four held

very positive views. The other five participants had not used the approach,

but two intended to when they returned to their workplace.

Analysis of the data revealed that the teachers’ views on implementing

TBLT in their classrooms centered around five themes, the first being

positive and the rest being negative: (a) increase in class participation,

(b) incompatibility with text-centered exams, (c) time constraints, (d)

lack of language proficiency, and (e) lack of support. The following


sections present the findings related to each category.

4.1 Increase in Participation

Although only half of the teachers have experience using a task-based

approach in their classrooms, nine out of ten of them believed it would

increase class participation. They reported that low motivation and a

passive attitude were serious problems in their classes. They believed

having students work together to complete tasks would get them interested

and actively involved. Teachers who have used the approach reported

that their ‘passive’ students became ‘passionate’ and ‘excited’ with

task-based activities. They commented that through TBLT, the students

were able to ‘use’ language, rather than learn about it. One teacher

saw TBLT as a solution to teaching multi-level classes with 30 to

35 students, which are typical of South Korean public schools. The

approach allows students to be individually involved in what would

otherwise be teacher-fronted whole group activities.

For the large group, it’s very effective because I cannot cover all the contents in one class. By giving them some tasks related to the content, it can be very helpful for them to participate in the content... In the large class and in the South Korean public school environment, many of the students cannot have the chance to do something in the class, but TBLT, I think is just one solution for those environments. So naturally, the students can have the time and opportunity to do something in the class. (Teacher #10)

The teachers associated TBLT with students having greater con-

fidence in speaking in English and a more positive attitude towards

learning English. They saw the approach as a way to increase student

participation and apply what was learned in class.

4.2 Incompatibility with Text-Centered Exams

All ten teachers reported that the text-centered exam structure was

a large constraint in using TBLT, the most important being the annual

Korean Scholastic Aptitude Test, of which the English section does

Soo Ha (Sue) Yim 39

Initial Categories Final Categories No. of mentions1)

Benefits Opportunities to use English Increase in participation 9 Positive attitude towards studying English Application to real life DifficultiesEducation system Incompatibility with assessment Incompatibility with text-centered exams 10 Incompatibility with the textbook Lack of time to veer from curriculum Time constraints 8 Lack of time to use tasks based approach Large, multi-leveled classes Teachers Lack of language proficiency Lack of language proficiency 10

not involve any direct speaking or writing components. They reported

that their school tests modeled the KSAT’s multiple choice format

and text-focused content to help prepare their students for the national

exam. All the teachers felt that the pressure and expectation to get

their students ready for these crucial tests overrode the need to work

on their English proficiency. This can be seen in this teacher’s response:

The problem is I want to teach communication, but we have to teach grammar and vocabulary. If the KSAT tested communication skill, it would be good, but it doesn’t. [On the test], we just have to figure out what the better answer is. (Teacher #4)

The teachers repetitively expressed the importance of helping their

students achieve higher grades and better scores. By complaining that

they could not use TBLT because of the test format, the teachers had

the underlying belief that the approach would not be appropriate in

preparing their students for the test. One private language school teacher

stated that they had more pressure to improve their students’ test scores

than regular school teachers because their students were paying customers

and were there specifically to get better grades.

TABLE 2

Reported benefits and difficulties in implementing tBLT


Inexperience with TBLT Not convinced TBLT is a good approach Students Lack on language proficiency Lack of need for English Preference for traditional teaching style Parents, bosses, and colleagues Lack of support 6 Resistance from parents and bosses Resistance from colleagues

4.3 Time Constraints

Another recurrent theme was lack of time. Eight of the teachers

complained that they had a full curriculum which allowed for few

diversions. For each lesson they had to cover a large amount of information

and the teachers struggled to get through it all. To maximize the limited

class time, the teachers felt a teacher-fronted approach was much more

efficient. The collaborative nature of a task-based approach required

time for students to discuss and work together. Many viewed it as

time consuming. One teacher complained “I do not have enough time

to cover all the content that I am required to cover within the given

time” (Teacher #7). Another teacher stated:

The important thing is efficiency. I know it’s my lame excuse, but I have to teach a lot of things. I have to convey that information, that amount of information. (Teacher #9)

The teachers also reported that they were too busy to prepare additional

tasks to incorporate in their lessons. They reported the national textbooks

were not suitable for TBLT and if they wanted to make their lessons

more task-based, they would have to make additional material.

With the textbook, teachers have to develop tasks. It’s not task-based designed...The teacher has to invest more time and at the same time, finish the course and have them assessed...It’s hard to balance the task and the regular curriculum. (Teacher #5)

1) The maximum number of mentions possible for each of categories is 10.

Soo Ha (Sue) Yim 41

The Ministry of Education has made great attempts to promote

task based language learning in English education. However, the curricu-

lum requires a large amount of information to be covered, making

it difficult to use collaborate and student centered forms of learning,

such as TBLT. Furthermore, the view that the government approved

textbooks are inappropriate for TBLT indicates that policy makers need

to take greater care in how they implement educational policies.

4.4 Lack of Language Proficiency

All the teachers cited lack of speaking proficiency as a major problem,

either on the part of the students, themselves, or both. Although the

teachers were taking graduate level courses in English, they themselves

felt they lacked the communicative and strategic competence to conduct

their classes in English. Even very proficient speakers expressed a lack

of confidence in speaking in front of their students in English.

As TBLT requires collaborative group work to complete the tasks,

some teachers felt their students’ language ability was too low for

such an approach and questioned its effectiveness.

It would be very helpful for advanced learners but for [the] average student, I doubt its effectiveness because [for] TBLT... proficiency is a requisite... But for beginners, it’s a bit indirect. For beginners teacher should be explicit. (Teacher #2)

These teachers who voiced concerns about the students being either

too low to use TBLT tended to be those who did not have much

experience with the approach. Other teachers reported that their students

preferred the traditional teacher-centered approach where the teachers

taught in Korean.

Even though they learned that kind of lesson using TBLT, [the students] really wanted to repeat that class using [the] traditional method. (Teacher #1)

Perceived lack of language proficiency for both the teachers and

the students were large constraints for using TBLT.


4.5 Lack of support

Six teachers also reported experiencing resistance from parents, boss-

es, and colleagues. Four of the five who had experience using TBLT

reported that they had encountered this as a problem, while the other

two hypothesized that this would be a problem. The teachers complained

that when they used tasks and activities, parents of students and bosses

criticized their teaching methods because they felt that they were not

teaching. Those teaching at a private language institute reported that

their bosses, taking a business-like approach rather than an educational

one, were said to have the interests of the parents in mind and not

education per se. One teacher described her experience as follows:

My boss doesn’t like [TBLT]...In my [private language institute], they’ve installed CCTV, so they can see what the students are doing. For example, during the group work, students move around. For them, it looks like they’re playing...And the parents, when the students go back home and the parents ask what they’ve done, the students say something exciting. The parents feel sometimes they’re playing. (Teacher #8)

Keeping the parents and bosses happy often meant taking a teaching

approach that involved a transfer of knowledge from the teacher to

the students. Many of the teachers expressed frustration at the situation,

but did not know how to resolve the problem.

The teachers also expressed resistance from fellow colleagues who

did not use such an approach. This sometimes resulted in relational

tension. As one teacher stated:

I have to work with another colleague for my grade. If my colleagues don’t agree with teaching English with TBLT, that can be one of the problems because they want to do the same thing...If my students like my approach much more than theirs, they might complain. (Teacher #6)

When probed further, the teachers expressed that because they were

generally younger and less experienced than their colleagues, and it

was difficult for them to suggest using new approaches. They alluded

that older teachers were less open to change, especially since they

Soo Ha (Sue) Yim 43

tended to be less proficient in English.

A more common concern from colleagues was the noise from TBLT

lessons.

In Korean classroom sentiment, tranquility is very important – not to bother other classes. Sometimes students got uncontrollable delving into what they’re doing. Sometimes they shout “This is not the answer. This must be the answer.” There are around 7 groups, sometimes 8 groups, so it can be very noisy. During the summer time it was very difficult for me to control their noise level.... Sometimes the other teachers complained “What’s wrong with this class?” (Teacher #3)

Again all the teachers reported that the older, more senior teachers

tended to be the ones who complained about their ‘noisy’classes. Because

most were unable to control the noise level of their classes, they gave

up on using a TBLT approach.

Data from the interviews revealed that, in general, the teachers thought

that TBLT would be an effective way to involve students in the class

and they would like to use the approach. However, obstacles, including

TBLT’s incompatibility with tests and lack of time, language ability

and support are large deterrents. Although the obstacles make it difficult

to implement TBLT, six of the ten teachers intend to use the approach

in future classes.

V.ImplicationsandLimitations

The findings reported in this research paper may have implications

for the implementation of TBLT in other EFL contexts. Many policy-

makers and practitioners in different countries acknowledge the benefits

of a task-based approach, but have similar difficulties in implementing

it. To help in the smooth implementation of TBLT in South Korea,

attention should be given to the issues below.

5.1 Assessment Reform

Exam scores in South Korea are of immense importance in determin-


ing one’s future education and career opportunities. The preoccupation

with high test scores has resulted in a dismissal of teaching approaches,

such as TBLT, which are not seen to help improve test results. Policy

makers must realize the contradictions of the educational policies and

form of assessments. Without a radical change in its assessment methods,

teachers will be hard pressed to do anything but teach to the test.

Currently, many high stake school exams in South Korea follow

the KSAT multiple-choice format, of which reading and listening items

carry the heaviest weight. Of the fifty items on the English section

of the KSAT, there are only four indirect speaking items and one to

two indirect writing items (Choi, 2008). It is essential to include a

spoken component to the KSAT and other high stake exams in South

Korea if teachers are expected to use TBLT, which focus on oral communi-

cation and collaboration, in their classrooms. Without such changes,

the mandates of the National Curriculum are nullified. Teachers will

continue to be pressured by students, parents and school authorities

to ignore the mandates of the National Curriculum and teach to the

test (Shim & Baik, as cited in Littlewood, 2007, p. 246).

5.2 Adapt not Adopt

Although the understanding of education is changing in South Korea,

it is still viewed more as a process of accumulating knowledge and

less as a process of constructing and using knowledge. The focus of

teaching is often not in getting students to create, construct or apply

knowledge, but in transmitting authoritative knowledge from teacher

to students in an efficient and effective manner. This view of the learning

process and the role between teacher and student is contrary to the

ideologies behind TBLT (Ellis, 2003). Such socio-cultural differences

need to be carefully recognized and accounted for before trying to

implement practices originating from different cultures (Bax, 1995, 2003;

Hu, 2002).

As the culture of learning in South Korea conflicts with the stu-

dent-centered, collaborative-interactive approach of TBLT, it should

be adapted to the local context, not adopted. Policy makers and practi-

tioners alike should take an ‘ideological’ attitude to teaching. Coleman

Soo Ha (Sue) Yim 45

Non-communicative learning

Form-focused (grammar exercises, substitution drills, pro-nunciation drills)

Pre-communicative language practice

Focus on language, but oriented towards meaning (question- and-answer practice to which everyone knows the answer)

Communicative language practice

Predictable range of language, but used to convey in-formation (activities in which recently taught language use to exchange information or conduct a survey amongst their classmates)

(1996) describes an ideological attitude as one which recognizes so-

cio-cultural differences and does not transplant teaching approaches

from one context to another. Failure to recognize these differences

may result in ‘tissue rejection’ (Holliday, 1992), in which methodologies

which were successful in context are rejected in another. Careful study

of the local needs and context is necessary to ensure an appropriate

methodology is applied and not simply transferred from one context

to another (Bax, 1995).

Littlewood’s (2007) five category framework for TBLT would be

appropriate in gradually introducing the approach in South Korea. His

framework is as follows:

...a continuum from activities which focus on discrete forms with no attention to meaning, through activities in which there is still focus on form but meaning and communication are also important, to activities in which the focus is clearly on the communication of meanings (p. 247).

Within this framework, teachers in South Korea can start with

non-communicative learning tasks and pre-communicative language

practice and build progressively towards more meaning-oriented

communication. Teachers should also pay heed to Carless’s (2004)

suggestion to adapt their lessons to fit their own abilities, beliefs, and

experience; as well as the context and the socio-cultural environment.

TABLE 3

Framework for tBLT (Littlewood, 2007)


Structured communication

Focus on meaning, but structured to cope with existing language resources (complex information-exchange activ-ities, structured role-playing tasks)

Authenticcommunication

Meaning-oriented, focus on communication of messages, language forms unpredictable (problem-solving, con-tent-based tasks, large-scale projects)

5.3 Teacher Training

Teachers who have little or no experience using TBLT may be

reluctant to use the approach, especially since there is greater risk in

losing face and being unable to handle students’ questions. Teachers

should therefore be supported through encouragement from their

workplace. Colleagues and bosses should acknowledge the benefits of

TBLT, be supportive of the teachers’ efforts and be tolerant of constructive

noise. Furthermore, teachers should be provided opportunities to attend

teacher training programs with qualified instructors and consultants (Li,

1998). The education should include special training for teaching young

learners (Nunan, 2003) as well as a component where teachers can

not only learn theories, but also practice them in classroom settings.

This training should also include a language skills component which

emphasizes speaking and listening skills (Li, 1998) to help build the

teachers’ confidence in speaking in English.

VI.RecommendationsandImplementation

As in many countries, the South Korean Ministry of Education

hopes to improve its population’s English proficiency, particularly in

speaking. Its attempts to do this by encouraging communicative and

task based instruction in the classroom and shifting from the prevalent

teacher-fronted grammar and text oriented English education has proven

to be difficult despite fourteen years passing since first prescribing

the approaches. If the Ministry of Education hopes to have teachers

implement the task-based approach, the socio-cultural context of South

Korea as a whole needs to be accounted for, of which English assessment

is perhaps the most important. Policy makers and teachers in South

Soo Ha (Sue) Yim 47

Korea need to take an eclectic approach rather than adopt a ready-made

approach. The mentality that approaches can be indiscriminately trans-

planted from one context to another will most likely lead to rejection

of those approaches (cf. Hu, 2002; Bax, 1995, 2003). When implementing

TBLT in the South Korean context, teachers should localize and modify

the approach so that it reflects their own pedagogical beliefs and meets

the needs of their particular students. They should also be encouraged

and supported at their workplaces to attempt new teaching practices

and provided with any necessary training and further education.

References

Bax, S. (1995). Appropriate methodology: The content of teacher

development activities. System, 23(3), 347-357.

Bax, S. (2003). The end of CLT: a context approach to language teaching.

ELT Journal, 57(3), 278-287.

Bygate, M. Skehan, P. & Swain, M. (2001). Introduction. In M. Bygate,

P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second

language learning, teaching and testing (pp.1-20). Harlow:

Longman.

Carless, D. (2004). Issues in Teachers’ Reinterpretation of a Task-Based

Innovation in Primary Schools. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 639-662.

Chang, B. (2002). The development of English educational materials

based on the Seventh National Curriculum of Korea. Journal of

Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 15-28. Abstract

only.

Chang, M. (2004). Analysis of Writing Activities in Korean English

Textbooks. Unpublished MA Thesis. Dept. of Linguistics, Germanic,

Slavic, Asian and African Languages, Michigan State University.

Choi, I. (2008). The impact of EFL testing on EFL education in Korea.

Language Testing, 25(1), 39-62.

Choi, S. (2000). Teachers’ beliefs about communicative language

teaching and their classroom practices. English Today, 55(4), 3-32.

Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2007) Research Methods in

Education, 6th Edition, London: Routledge.


Coleman, H. (1996). Autonomy and ideology in English language

classroom. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Society and the language classroom

(pp.1-15). Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, G. (1996). How culturally appropriate is the communicative

approach? ELT Journal 50(3), 213-218.

Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction.

Language Learning, 51(Supple.1), 1-46.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Holliday, A. (1992). Tissue rejection and informal order in ELT projects.

Applied Linguistics, 13(4), 403-424.

Hu, G. (2002). Potential cultural resistance to pedagogical imports:

The case of communicative language teaching in China. Language,

Culture and Curriculum, 15(2), 93-105.

İlïn, G., İnözü, J., & Yumru, H. (2007). Teachers’ and learners’

perceptions of tasks: Objectives and outcomes. Journal of Theory

and Practice in Education, 3(1), 60-68.

Jeon, I.(2005). An analysis of task-based materials and performance:

Focused on Korean highschool English textbooks. English Teaching,

60(2), 87-109.

Nam, J. (2005). Perceptions of Korean college students and teachers

about communication-based English instruction: Evaluation of a

college EFL curriculum in south korea. Unpublished PhD Thesis.

Dept. of Philosophy, Ohio State University.

Ko, M. (2008). Korean college students’ and a teacher-participant’s

reactions to TBLT. English Teaching, 63(3), 25-43.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Teaching Methods: Changing Tracks,

Challenging Trends. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 59-81.

Korea Institute of Curriculum and Evaluation. (2008). The National

School Curriculum: English. Seoul: Author. Downloaded from

http://www.kice.re.kr/upload/article/10260/1225389324576_06_

English(Final).pdf on November 12, 2008.

Lee, M. (2006). The effect of L1 on task-based foreign language learning

of Korean learners. Foreign Languages Education 13(2), 257-282.

Li, D. (1998). “It’s always more difficult than you plan and image”:

Teachers’ perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative

Soo Ha (Sue) Yim 49

approach in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4), 677-703.

Littlewood, W. (2007). Communicative and task-based language teaching

in East Asian classrooms. Language Teaching, 40(3), 243-249.

Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research,

and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form

in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Mackey, A. & Gass, S. (2005). Second Language Research: Methodology

and Design. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

McDonough, K. & Chaikitmongkol, W. (2007). Teachers’ and Learners’

Reactions to a Task-Based EFL Course in Thailand. TESOL

Quarterly, 41(1), 107-132.

Nunan, D. (2003). The impact of English as a global language on

educational policies and practices in the Asia-pacific region. TESOL

Quarterly, 37(4), 589-613.

Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge, England:

Cambridge University Press.

Paik, J. (2005). Managing Change: The Sociocultural Implications of

the Early English Language (EEL) Policy in South Korea. Un

published PhD Thesis. Dept. of Philosophy, University of Illinois.

Park, M. (1999). Task-based interaction in Korean EFL classrooms.

English Language Teaching, 10(2), 79-101.

Richards, J. & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language

Teaching: A Description and Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Skehan, P. (2007). Task research and language teaching: reciprocal

relationships. In S. Fotos & H. Nassaji (Eds.), Form-focused

Instruction and Teaching Education: Studies in Honor of Rod Ellis

(pp.55-69). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Willis, D. & Willis, J. (2001). Task-based language learning. In R.

Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge Guide to Teaching

English to Speakers of Other Languages (pp.173-179). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Yim, S. (2003). Globalization and National Identity: English Language

Textbooks of Korea. Unpublished Phd Thesis. Dept. of Humanities

and Social Sciences, New York University.


Sue Yim Samsung Art and Design Institute

[email protected]

Received: 2009. 11.20.

Peer reviewed: 2009. 12. 05.

Accepted: 2009. 12. 12.

Documents

Tblt Korea