The Power of an Integrated Curriculum through TBLT

The Power of an Integrated Curriculum through TBLT

JALT 2011 in TokyoNagoya University of Foreign

StudiesDepartment of English Language Teaching

Kazuyoshi Sato & Paul A. Crane

Introduction Hinkel (2006) claims that “[in] an age of globalization,

pragmatic objectives of language learning place an increased value on integrated and dynamic multiskill instructional models with a focus on meaningful communication and the development of learners’ communicative competence” (p. 113). Although integrating all language skills has been a recent trend in language classrooms rather than focusing on language skills in separate courses, there has been little research as to how skill integration influences student learning.

Introduction Moreover, there has been little discussion

about how to develop a TBLT curriculum. This study reports the results of an integrated English curriculum through TBLT over one year.

Skills IntegrationBrown (2007, p.286)1. Production and reception are quite simply two sides of the same coin;

one cannot split the coin in two. 2. Interaction means sending and receiving messages.3. Written and spoken language often…bear a relationship to each other;

to ignore that relationship is to ignore the richness of language.4. For literate learners, the interrelationship of written and spoken

language is an intrinsically motivating reflection of language and culture and society.

Skills Integration5. By attending primarily to what learners can do with language, and only

secondarily to the forms of language, we invite any or all of the four skills that are relevant into the classroom arena.

6. Often one skill will reinforce another; we learn to speak, for example, in part by modeling what we hear, and we learn to write by examining what we can read.

7. Proponents of the whole language approach… have shown us that in the real world of language use, most of our natural performance involves not only the integration of one or more skills, but connections between language and the way we think and feel and act.

Models of Skills IntegrationBrown (2007)・ Content-based instruction・ Task-based language teaching・ Theme-based/topic-based instruction・ Experiential learning (e.g., projects, field trips,

simulations)

Definitions of Task “[T]asks are always activities where the target language is

used by the learner for a communication purpose (goal) in order to achieve an outcome” (Willis, 1996, p. 23).

“A task is a language-teaching activity where meaning is primary, there is some kind of gap, students are required to use their own linguistic resources, and there is an outcome other than the display of language for its own sake” (Ellis, 2008, p. 981).

TBLT FrameworkPre-task:Introduction of a topic (Impact Issues, Longman)bbbbbbListeningConversation strategiesDiscussion questions

Task cycle: Skills integration in four classesRecording in pairs

Language focus:TranscriptionSelf-evaluationTeacher feedback (Willis, 1996)

Pre-task

Task cycle

Language focus

Review of LiteratureLittle longitudinal research on TBLT was conducted except

for Sato & Takahashi (2008)Sato & Takahashi (2008) conducted a three-year long study

in a high school using repeated task-based instruction which integrated writing and speaking in particular. Students were engaged in tasks collaboratively and improved both fluency and accuracy.

Research Issue Ellis (2003) raised one issue by saying that “[i]t

should be noted that the rationale for task-based syllabuses is largely theoretical in nature, there being little empirical evidence to demonstrate that they are superior to linguistic syllabuses” (p. 210).

Moreover, few longitudinal studies were reported at a college level in Japan.

Participants and Teaching Context・ 43 first-year university students (two classes-A&B) in Department of English Language Teaching, NUFS. ・ DELT was established in 2008 with an integrated English

curriculum called CBEC. ・ There are 7 English classes. Among them, four classes (D&D, IR, AW, PUT) are integrated according to the same topic.・ Each topic is covered in two weeks. ・ The participants’ average score of TOEFL was 420 in April, 2009.

Research Questions1. How did the students perceive the integrated curriculum and engage in

various tasks?　2. How did they view recording/self-evaluation and teacher feedback?

3. How did they improve their communication ability through the integrated curriculum ?

Data Collection1. Videotaped conversations (12 topics):

No.1, 6, and 12 were evaluated by 3 NETs based on the rubric. 2. Essays (12 topics):No.1, 6, and 12 were evaluated by 3 NETs

based on the rubric. 3. Self-evaluation reports (twice, at the end of each semester4. Interviews with 6 selected students from B class (by Sato in

Japanese)5. TOEFL tests (April, January)

6 selected students (B class)

Student

A B C D E F

Sex F M F F M MLevel Low -IM IM High-IM High-IM IM Low-IM

Essay Evaluation CriteriaContent (15 points)

Organization (5 points)

Vocabulary and Grammar (5 points)

Total: 25 points

Essay Evaluation CriteriaContent (15 points possible)

Provides only a small amount of information; ideas present but not developed; not always keeping to the requested topic 6-8

Provides a pretty fair amount of information; some development of ideas; some ideas lacking supporting detail or evidence 9-12

Provides lots of information; very thorough; well developed, and stays on the requested topic 13-15

Essay Evaluation CriteriaOrganization (5 points possible) Has a clear topic sentence Yes = +1 No = 0 Has a logical and effective order to the

reasons and support Yes = +2 No = 0 Used transition words and uses them

correctlyYes = +1 No = 0 Has a clear conclusionYes = +1 No = 0

Essay Evaluation CriteriaVocabulary and Grammar (5 points possible)Many errors in grammar; word choice;

spelling; computer spell check and grammar check ignored 1

Some errors in grammar; word choice; spelling2-3

Almost no errors in grammar, word choice, or spelling: 4-5

Video Evaluation Criteria

Interactive Communication (10 points)

Delivery (5 points)Content (5 points)

Total: 20 points

Video Evaluation CriteriaInteractive Communication (10 points) Initiating/Responding

Initiates and responds appropriatelyDevelopment

Maintains and develops the interaction and negotiates towards an outcome with very little support

Use of conversation strategies Uses CS appropriately

Video Evaluation CriteriaDelivery (5 points) Pronunciation / Intelligibility

Is intelligible Intonation is generally appropriate Sentence and word stress is generally accurately placed

Volume Can be clearly heard

Fluency Produces extended stretches of language despite some hesitation

Eye contact Maintains comfortable eye contact

Video Evaluation CriteriaContent (5 points)Cohesive / Coherent

Uses a range of cohesive devicesRelevant

Contributions are relevant despite some repetitionDepth/Extent

Can develop the topic and include support for the reasons

Result (Essay)Total Essay Average (25 points)

Essay 1 Essay 6 Essay 12

Low 12.66 15 17.33High 21.33 23.33 24.66

Average 17.385 20.384 22.495

Total Essay Content(15 points)


Low 8.33 12 11.33

High 13.33 15 15

Average 11.053 12.864 13.942

Total Essay Vocabulary & Grammar(5 points)

Essay 1 Essay 6 Essay 12Low 2 2.33 3High 4.66 4.33 5

Average 3.273 3.464 4.108

Total Essay Organization (5 points)


Low 1 2.33 3High 4.66 5 5

Average 3.052 4.064 4.44

Results (Speaking)Total Video Average

(20 points)

Video 1 Video 6 Video 12

Low 7.66 13.66 16.33High 14.33 18.66 19.66

Average 10.28 14.99 18.26

Total Video Content (5 points)

Video 1

Video 6

Video 12

Low 1.66 3 4

High 3.33 5 5

Average 2.33 3.775 4.596

Total Video Interactive Communication

(10 points)

Video 1 Video 6 Video 12Low 3.66 6 8.33High 7.33 9.33 10

Average 5.163 7.553 9.398

Total Video: Delivery (5 points)

Video 1

Video 6

Video 12

Low 2 3.33 4

High 4 4.33 5

Average 2.775 3.663 4.266

Improvement SummaryStuden

tEssay

12Essay 1

Diff.Video

12Video 1

Diff.A 22.67 13.67 9.03 19 7.67 11.27B 22.3 15 7.3 18.33 14.33 4C 24.33 21.33 3 19.67 13.33 6.33D 24.67 21.33 3.3 13.67 9 4.67E 23.67 20.33 3.34 16.33 8 8.33F 17.33 12.6 4.66 18 9.33 8.68

Students A & F Video Sample Topic 1

Let’s watch a sample video.What do you notice about:

Interactive communication (IC)? Initiating and responding Development Use of conversation strategies

Student A Video SampleTopic 1

What do you notice about: Delivery (D)?

Pronunciation/Intelligibility Volume Fluency Eye contact


What do you notice about: Content (C)?

Cohesive/coherent Relevant Depth / Extent


Evaluators’ comments about IC1: No use of CS except HAY, very mechanical2: Reading, few CS, little interaction3: Reading, few CS, no FUQ


Evaluators’ comments about delivery1: Pron. OK, fluency not good if not reading, no eye contact2: Little eye contact, very stiff, not natural3: no eye contact, pron. OK, good intonation


Evaluators’ comments about content1: coherent, but just reading, no contrib. outside of “script”;2: reading, reading3: relevant, provides some support


Let’s watch Student A’s last recording and see how she improved!


Evaluators’ comments about IC1: Great develop. of topic, good shadowing, many CS2: Managed to negotiate lack of vocab. well, checks partner’s understanding; clarifies/helps partner3: Lots of CS, listens actively & carefully, helps partner, great interaction


Evaluators’ comments about delivery1: Easy to understand; few mistakes, fluency good, good eye contact2: clear, intelligible, good inton. good volume, confidence, long cohesive reasons3:good volume & confidence, self-corrects pron.


Evaluators’ comments about content1: Very coherent & logical; goes into depth;2: clear & cohesive; nice depth;3: develops topic well, structures ideas clearly, presents good reasons

Results (Interview)1. CBEC was fun (all six students).・ It was fun. I could listen to different ideas from my

classmates. I could change and deepen my ideas through four integrated classes. (Student D) ・ I could share and compare my ideas with my classmates’. Then, I could come up with my new ideas. That’s why I enjoyed the program and I think it was useful. (Student C)

Results (Interview)2. CBEC was different from HS English classes (all six students). ・ There was no pair work in my HS. The teacher mainly talked and

checked the answers of the books for university entrance exams. However, it was boring and many students did not listen to the teacher and just did what they wanted to do. (Student B) ・ We have to express our opinions in CBEC; however, we just memorized in HS. (Student D)

Results (Interview)3. Advantages of CBEC (All six students) (1) Developing ideas by sharing ideas with classmates (six students) ・ I could develop my ideas through the program. For example, I could

learn different ideas from IR and changed my ideas. I sometimes changed my ideas in PUT through listening to others’ ideas. I could choose better ideas by myself. As for “working women,” I had an initial idea that women should continue to work to save money by putting their children to day-care centers. However, someone told me that putting a child to a day-care center costs money. Then, I changed to the idea that women should stay home for one year to raise their babies. (Student A)

Results (Interview)・We started with D&D on Friday. Then, I thought the topic was difficult and I didn’t like it. Next we came to understand the topic better in IR on Monday. After that, I could rewrite my opinion better by finding more information in AW on Tuesday. Then, I came to like the topic. Finally, in PUT on Thursday I had chances to listen to others’ ideas and were often impressed by others’. I thought they were clear and found the topic more interesting. (Student B)・I could listen to many ideas from different classmates and expressed my ideas in all four classes. Because there were four classes, I could deepen my understanding about each topic. (Student D)

Results (Interview)(2) Receiving teachers’ feedback (four students)・ I could see if my ideas in writing were good or not by

actually communicating them in class. Then, I could receive feedback on my errors from the teacher. It was good that I could receive feedback about the same topic. After that, I rewrote my ideas and received feedback again. I really like the system. I also enjoyed listening to others’ opinions. (Student E)

Results (Interview) (3) Using more conversation strategies (three students)・ I was not good at asking follow-up questions so there were

many silences at the beginning. It was a torture. Then, I learned what kinds of questions I should ask through the program and got used to asking follow-up questions. (Student B)・ I could keep talking by using conversation strategies such as shadowing and follow-up questions compared to April. (Student E)

Results (Interview) (4)Learning vocabulary (two students) ・ I also learned new vocabulary from news articles

in IR. Those new words were useful in writing and speaking. (Student D) ・ I came to use new words by encountering them many times. (Student B)

Results (Interview)4. Topics (four students) ・ International marriage and same-sex marriage were difficult because I

had never thought about them. I could not find any good reasons and ended up with unclear ideas. (Student D) ・ I enjoyed talking about women’s place and capital punishment. As for capital punishment, I thought it was the most difficult one. However, I heard the most ideas from my classmates of the 12 topics and I became interested in it. On the other hand, I had difficulty talking about same-sex marriage because most of the classmates had the same ideas. (Student B)

Results (Interview)5. Recording/Self-evaluation was effective (five students) ・ I could evaluate my ability objectively by watching the video. So it

was useful. Also I was glad to see my progress. Through self-evaluation, I could notice my errors and my bad habits. (Student E) ・ I hated recording and felt like crying at first because I got stuck and there were many silences. I could not express my ideas and just nodded to my partners. So I didn’t like watching myself in the video. However, I think it was useful because I could set up my next goals. So I think it was useful. (Student D)

Results (Interview)6. Progress (Six students) ・ I could improve my English ability. There were many

chances to use English in this program. I noticed my progress when I was spoken to by some foreign exchange students. I could communicate with them. (Student F) ・ I could improve my TOEFL score by 80 points. I could communicate with my host family when I visited Boston in summer. (Student B)

Results (Interview)7. Improvements・ I wish I could receive feedback earlier. (Student A, B, F)・ Unfortunately, many students did not realize the

importance of this program. They were still passive. So was I. However, I noticed it when I had a change to explain the program to high school students. Then I became motivated and started to work harder. (Student E)

Results (TOEFL)DELT (43) A (162) B (103)

April (2009) 420 425 398

January (2010) 471 449 423

Findings1. How did the students perceive the integrated curriculum

and engage in various tasks?(1) Students enjoyed sharing their ideas with classmates and

developed their ideas through the integrated curriculum.(2) Students developed and deepened their understanding

about each topic through the integrated curriculum.(3) Students enjoyed topics which were divided into pros

and cons.

Findings1. How did the students perceive the integrated

curriculum and engage in various tasks?(4) Students appreciated teacher feedback for

rewriting.(5) Students learned new vocabulary words by

recycling them through the integrated curriculum.

Findings2. How did they view recording/self-evaluation

and teacher feedback? (1) Students evaluated their performance, noticed

strong and weak points, and set up next goals.(2) They became aware of their progress and

classmates’ progress.

Findings3. How did they improve their communication ability through the

integrated curriculum ?(1) Students developed their speaking ability by actually

communicating with each other, learning to use more conversation strategies.

(2) Students developed their writing ability by writing more and communicating more.

(3) Students developed both fluency and accuracy (communicative competence) through the integrated curriculum.

Conclusion Repeated tasks through language integration

facilitate student understanding about each topic and develop their communicative competence.

ReferencesBrown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principle (3rd ed.) New York: Pearson LongmanEllis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Hinkle, E. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching the four skills. TESOL Quarterly, 40,

109-131.Sato, Y., & Takahashi, K. (2008). Curriculum revitalization in a Japanese High School:

teacher-teacher and teacher-university collaboration. In D. Hayes & J. Sharkey (Eds.), Revitalizing a program for school-age learners through curricular innovation (pp. 205-237). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

Wills, J. (1996). A Framework for Task-Based Learning. Longman.

Documents

The Power of an Integrated Curriculum through TBLT