Abstract
This article provides an account of how presentation-practice-production (PPP) textbook lessons were turned into task-based lessons which were then implemented in three Grade 4 classrooms in primary schools in Vietnam. This account seeks to address a topic of considerable practical value for teachers interested in teaching with tasks, namely, how PPP lessons can be adapted for task-based teaching. The article outlines lesson redesign and key steps in the process. Reflections on the lesson design and implementation provide implications for teachers and teacher educators.
The Teaching Context and Need for Change
Vietnam introduced a primary English curriculum in 2010 in which English became a compulsory subject in primary schools from Grade 3 (Nguyen and Nguyen, 2007). Accompanying the curriculum was an English textbook series developed in Vietnam for Grades 3, 4 and 5 (Hoang et al., 2015). This textbook series adopts the presentation-practice-production (PPP) approach in the speaking lessons. Each of these lessons begins with a dialogue practice activity called ‘Look, Listen and Repeat’ in which the target structures and vocabulary are introduced (Presentation). This is followed by a controlled practice activity called ‘Point and Say’ focussed on rehearsing the target structural pattern in set dialogues (Practice). Finally, learners do a pair/group activity called ‘Let’s talk’, which involves more communicative language practice of the target pattern (Production). Appendix A provides an example of one of these lessons.
As a teacher and teacher trainer, I (first author) came to two main conclusions after three years of observing teachers implementing the PPP speaking lessons. First, I found that students showed little interest in the dialogue practice activity in the presentation phase and were equally uninterested in repetitive practice of the target pattern in the practice phase. Second, I noticed that in the production phase, students had a greater focus on reproducing these structures than real communicative practice. To provide more robust evidence for these conclusions, I observed and interviewed seven teachers from six primary schools implementing 11 speaking lessons. As reported in Bui and Newton (forthcoming), the findings showed that all teachers followed the PPP sequence to implement the lessons, but three of them expressed concerns about the limitations of the PPP lessons. This motivated us to find ways to increase the communicativeness of the lessons. For this, we turned to task-based language teaching (TBLT). However, simply replacing the PPP lessons with new TBLT lessons was not possible because Vietnam public school teachers do not have this freedom. We concluded that, realistically, the best way forward was to explore ways to adapt the existing PPP speaking lessons so as to align them more closely with TBLT. This way, the textbook could still be followed and the amount of time required to prepare new materials was kept to a reasonable level.
This materials development work was part of a larger study into the viability of task-based teaching in primary school English foreign language (EFL) classes in Vietnam (see Newton and Bui, 2018), which we will now briefly summarize. After the lessons were redesigned as described below, three Grade 4 teachers volunteered to implement the lessons in their classrooms. These teachers were first briefed about the principles of TBLT and how to implement the lessons. They were also encouraged to pair stronger students with weaker ones in response to their concern about the weaker students’ ability to do tasks. The teachers and their students successfully conducted the lessons in their regular lessons and reported positively on the experience. This article provides a description of the process of developing task-based lessons from PPP lessons in the hope that in doing so we can guide teachers in other contexts who also seek to make their teaching more communicative. As Willis and Willis (2007) point out, developing task-based lessons from existing textbook materials is a good place to start since it reduces preparation time and gives both learners and teachers a sense of security.
From PPP Lessons to Task-based Lessons
TBLT differs markedly from PPP by deemphasizing deliberate pre-teaching and controlled practice of grammatical structures and instead places much greater emphasis on learners doing purposeful tasks. Ellis (2018) identifies four key features of language learning tasks: (i) learners’ primary focus is on meaning; (ii) there is some kind of gap; (iii) learners rely on their own linguistic resources; and (iv) there is a clearly defined outcome other than the use of language.
A widely accepted framework for task-based teaching consists of three main phases: pre-task, main task, and post-task. Following Willis (1996), the pre-task phase familiarizes learners with the task topic and prepares them lexically for the task. The main task phase comprises three components: task, planning and report. In the task component, learners perform the task in pairs or small groups. The planning component gives learners some space to attend to language forms before reporting their task outcomes to the class. The post-task phase typically involves a deliberate focus on language forms that have been used or attempted to be used during the earlier phases. Willis’s suggestions for adapting this framework to suit young learners (YLs) informed the development of the task-based lessons in the current study.
The redesigned lessons are the first two lessons in a textbook unit (Unit 8). The two speaking lessons in this unit are similar in design and follow a common topic of school timetable (Appendices A and B). As stated in the teacher’s book, lesson 1 aims to enable students to talk about school subjects they have on a particular day, using the target pattern ‘What subjects do you have on. . .? ~ I have. . .’. Lesson 2 aims to enable students to exchange information about the days when they have a particular subject, using the target pattern ‘When do you have. . .?~ I have it on. . .’.
Figure 1 presents an overview of the PPP activities in a standard PPP speaking lesson in the textbook and of the TBLT activities derived from them. The sections that follow detail how each of the phases in each lesson was developed.
An overview of a PPP and related TBLT lesson.
Pre-task
For YLs, Willis suggests lengthening the pre-task phase to give more weight to exposure to language input. To reflect this advice and to match the amount of input in the existing textbook presentation phase, two preparatory activities were included in the pre-task phase: a vocabulary priming activity and an input-based task (IBT).
In lesson 1, the vocabulary priming activity takes the form of a listing task in which students brainstorm the school subjects in groups before racing to the board to write down the subjects in a spidergram. The game ends after the teacher has decided on a winning team (i.e. the team with the most correct words written on the board). In Lesson 2, the vocabulary priming activity involves singing a song that features days of the week, namely ‘What day is it today?’ These activities are designed to introduce the lesson topic and relevant vocabulary (Willis, 1996) related to school subjects and days of the week. Elements of competitiveness and excitement are expected to engage students’ interests in the early stages of the lesson.
Next, the IBT was not completely new, but was a modification of the textbook presentation phase. This modification turned the ‘Look, Listen and Repeat’ dialogue practice activity into a listening task. In both lessons, instead of having students look, listen and repeat the dialogue, this task requires them to listen to the recording of the dialogue provided in the textbook to obtain information to do the listening task. In Lesson 1, this task was developed as follows. From a set of eight subject cards provided, students in groups guess which three subjects the textbook character Nam has in a day and select three cards. To check whether their guesses are right or wrong, students listen to the recording of the dialogue provided in the textbook and are then engaged in a discussion of the answers. In Lesson 2, students listen to the recording of the dialogue to obtain information about the days when the two textbook characters Nam and Tom have English in order to fill gaps in the table (Table 1). After ticking off the days when Tom and Nam have English, students examine the completed table to identify the three days on which both Tom and Nam have English. Additionally, students are required to listen for the name of Nam’s English teacher and circle the correct letter (a, b or c). Both of these IBTs reflect the criterial features of tasks, namely a primary focus on meaning, an information or opinion gap, learners having to draw on their own resources, and a clear task outcome other than just practising language.
Handout for IBT for Lesson 2.
Task Cycle
For the main task, Willis suggests including a set of short tasks for YLs rather than one big task. However, given that the students already had some background English knowledge, we felt they could just do one main task. For both lessons, the main task was a two-way information gap task developed from the ‘Point and Say’ practice activity from the speaking textbook lesson (Figures 2.1 and 2.2). The textbook activity involved learners practising a set dialogue in pairs with some substitutional options (see Appendices A or B). It was turned into a task by adding an outcome and splitting the information in the dialogue between two learners to create an information gap. This information gap task can also be seen as a ‘focussed’ task in that it was designed to help students to implicitly use and learn (i.e. focus on) a pre-determined target structural pattern (Ellis, 2018) as specified in the textbook speaking lesson.
Handouts for a class 4A student.
Handouts for a class 4B student.
In Lesson 1, the main task engaged students in comparing their given timetable with their partner’s timetable in order to identify three differences and two similarities between the timetables. To perform this task, each student in a pair is assigned to a class (Class 4A or Class 4B). Each class 4A student is given a complete Class 4A timetable and an incomplete Class 4B timetable (Figure 2.1). Similarly, each Class 4B student is given a complete Class 4B timetable and an incomplete Class 4A timetable (Figure 2.2). Each student is given his or her complete timetable first and told to keep it hidden from his or her partner. To achieve the task goals, students work in pairs, exchanging information to complete the incomplete timetables. When doing this, students are instructed to read the timetable from left to right so that the listeners can catch the needed subjects to fill the gaps. This activity results in each student having two completed timetables to compare.
Similarly, in Lesson 2, each student in a pair is assigned as a Class 4A student or Class 4B student. A Class 4A student receives a Class 4A timetable and a Class 4B worksheet (Figure 3.1). A Class 4B student receives a Class 4B timetable and a Class 4A worksheet (Figure 3.2). Students are instructed not to let their partners see their timetable. In pairs, students exchange information from their timetable to help each other complete the worksheet. To do this, the students take turns asking about the days when each has the various subjects as well as the teachers who teach these subjects. When receiving the answers, students place a tick on the correct days and write the names of the teachers in the blank provided. When pairs of students have completed their worksheets, they work together to identify the similarities and differences between the two timetables based on the completed worksheets.
Handouts for a class 4A student.
Handouts for a class 4B student.
Once learners complete the main task, the task cycle proposed by Willis (1996) requires them to plan a report on the task outcome for the class and then present this report. However, for YLs, Willis suggests these activities should take less time or be conducted with teacher assistance. But given time limitations and challenges for YLs to report task outcomes in public (Muller, 2005) we moved the planning and reporting activities to the post-task phase where it was integrated into teacher-led discussion of the task outcomes.
Post Task
In the textbook, the final production phrase of the lesson was a pair work practice activity (Appendices A and B). In Lesson 1, it requires students to exchange real information about the school subjects they have in a day. In Lesson 2, students also exchange real information about the school subjects they have and in addition they talk about the days they have the subjects and the teachers who teach the subjects. For both task-based lessons, these production activities were replaced with two post-task activities focussed on language analysis and practice. The language analysis involves a teacher-led discussion of public performance of two or three pairs of students and provided opportunities for a deliberate focus on the target structures. The language analysis activity was ‘Pass the Ball’. This activity involves students passing around a ball and, when the music stops, the student holding the ball answers a question from a student chosen by the teacher. This activity creates an opportunity for practising the target forms while also encouraging real communication about the students’ timetable.
Reflection
These redesigned lessons were successfully implemented in the authentic classrooms as reported in Newton and Bui (2018). This success was attributed to three main factors which carry implications for teachers and teacher educators. First, the pre-task activities facilitated the performance of the main tasks by starting with guided IBTs to more demanding communication tasks. Specifically, the IBT in Lesson 1 prepared students for the task of asking their friends for the school subjects to complete the timetable in the main task. Similarly, the IBT in Lesson 2 prepared students for the main task of exchanging information on timetables to find differences and similarities regarding days when particular subjects are scheduled in their respective timetables. These lesson design features suggest that EFL YLs who are unfamiliar with TBLT can perform information-gap tasks (the main task) successfully if their performance is scaffolded with appropriate facilitating tasks (Willis and Willis, 2007).
Second, peer assistance facilitated the initial struggles that the weaker students faced in the main task because the target structures had been introduced implicitly in the IBTs rather than being explicitly taught and drilled. The stronger students who were better able to draw on the target language from the pre-task activities and to mobilize their linguistic resources successfully helped their weaker peers formulate the questions and answers to participate in the performance of the main tasks. We see this in the example below taken from interaction data in the larger study in which the stronger student (S1) steps in to assist the weaker one (S2) to formulate the question to ask for information.
Extract 1. Peer assistance at the initial stage of task performance 1. S2: What about. . .? 2. S1: What subject, what subject? Subject là môn học được chưa. (Subject means school subject.) 3. S2: What subject and Wednesday? 4. S1: What subject do you have Wednesday? 5. S2: What subject do you have Wednesday? 6. S1: Math, Science and PE.
The findings suggest successful task performance requires a degree of mutuality from the stronger student who needs to be willing to provide language support. Teachers may need to train students to become efficient interlocutors who understand the value of assisting each other.
Third, teacher expertise is important. The teachers in the current study were able to manage their classes, give clear instructions and handle all phases of the lessons despite these lessons involving a new and unfamiliar pedagogic approach. But it is important to note that these teachers were strong in both pedagogical and language skills, and that they had appropriate training and guidance to prepare them to transition to the task-based lessons. And so while our research shows that EFL teachers can successfully transition to TBLT in classrooms where a more traditionally teacher-centred approach has been common, our claims do not extend to teachers who are unprepared or lack relevant training and skills.
All teachers, however, should be prepared to face challenges as they transition to task-based teaching. A major challenge that the participant teachers in the larger study reported was the preparation time required to design task-based lessons compared to the little preparation required to teach from the textbook. In the future, we hope to see this obstacle addressed through the introduction of more textbooks oriented towards task-based teaching. But in the meantime we offer three suggestions:
Collaborative lesson planning and sharing resources among teachers shares the burden of designing new lessons.
As lessons are developed, they are shared in a bank of ready-made lesson plans and task materials which builds up over time.
Designing lessons is a skill that we become more efficient at with practice.
Another challenge is managing interactive tasks in large classes. Interactive tasks can be noisy and chaotic if not managed well. Consequently, teachers and learners end up feeling disheartened and both experience frustration at the lack of clear learning opportunities and outcomes. To address this challenge, we have first to be prepared for classes to not always run smoothly in the early stages of a teaching innovation; we need the mindset to learn from mistakes and keep refining our practice. Second, it is useful to keep in mind that learners need time to adjust to new routines and new expectation, and that with regular use of new methods, they become better at self-managing. More specifically, we offer the following suggestions:
Model interactive pair-work tasks as a whole class, with the teacher as one partner and the class as the other.
Model a task by having a pair of more able learners perform a similar task in front of the class.
Begin with short, simple, tightly controlled tasks. Build up to longer, more open tasks over time.
To check that your instructions are clear, ask some learners to retell to the class the instructions you gave.
Be clear about time limits and have a way of communicating these without having to shout above the hum of group work (e.g. ring a bell, with different numbers of rings for different timings).
Plan ahead of time how you will use the classroom space for pair or group work. Consider questions such as: What movement of students and furniture is involved? How can this be minimized or accomplished efficiently? How far apart to groups need to be?
Establish with the class the rules for moving into groups and doing group work.
We conclude by reiterating the point we have sought to advance in this article: in situations where textbooks are mandated, PPP textbook lessons can be successfully developed into task-based lessons in a way that allows for the textbook curriculum to be followed while at the same time introducing innovative pedagogy. Furthermore, in the case of the textbook redesign described in this article, when implemented in real classrooms, the task-based lessons were well received by teachers and students alike and created richer language learning opportunities (see also Bui and Newton, forthcoming).
