Searle, Clari. (2008) Process versus product? : personal reflection and experimentation in task-based learning with the Hiroshima Teacher Trainees 2008. English Language Teacher Education and Development, Vol.11 . pp. 33-38. ISSN 1365-3741

PDF WRAP_Searle_5_Searle.pdf - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader Download (323Kb)

Abstract

In my ten years of teaching, I’ve spent a considerable amount of time devising the best ways to teach linguistic elements, such as grammar or pronunciation targets. Increasingly it seems to me that this vantage could be fundamentally flawed, as it focuses too heavily on product rather than process. Here, I’m thinking of classes where teachers strive to develop ‘authentic’ practice situations that require the use of certain targets or products. Their lesson plan focuses on the target and the learners are encouraged to do the same with practice activities. It begs the question, wouldn’t it be more authentic to start with the process? To start with the task and see what kind of linguistic structures this engenders?

Item Type:	Journal Article
Subjects:	L Education > LB Theory and practice of education
Divisions:	Faculty of Social Sciences > Centre for Applied Linguistics
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):	English language -- Study and teaching, English teachers -- Training of, English teachers -- Japan -- Hiroshima, Task analysis in education
Journal or Publication Title:	English Language Teacher Education and Development
Publisher:	Univesity of Warwick
ISSN:	1365-3741
Date:	2008
Volume:	Vol.11
Page Range:	pp. 33-38
Status:	Peer Reviewed
Access rights to Published version:	Open Access
References:	Chomsky, N. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter. Feez, S. 1998. Text-Based Syllabus Design. Sydney: National Centre for English Teaching and Research. Gass, S. M. 1991. ‘Grammar instruction, selective attention and learning processes’. In R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith and M. Swain (eds), Foreign/Second Language Pedagogy Research (pp.134–141). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Gass, S. M. 1997. Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Gass, S. M. & E. M. Varonis. 1994. ‘Input, interaction, and second language production’. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16: 283–302. Holt, J. 1993. ‘We learn by doing’. In J. Canfield & M. V. Hansen (compiled by), Chicken Soup for the Soul: 101 Stories to Open the Heart and Rekindle the Spirit (p.29). Deerfield Beach, FL: HCI. Long, M. H. 1996. ‘The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition’. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (eds), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp.413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Mitchell, R. & F. Myles. 1998. Second Language Learning Theories. London: Arnold. Nunan, D. 1989. Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J. C. & T. S. Rodgers. 2001. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schmidt, R. 1990. ‘The role of consciousness in second language learning’. Applied Linguistics 11: 17– 46. Schmidt, R. & S. N. Frota. 1986. Developing basic conversation ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. Day (ed.), Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition (pp.237–326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Sharwood Smith, M. 1993. ‘Input enhancement in instructed SLA: theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15: 165–179. Skehan, P. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Learning Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Willis, J. & D. Willis. (eds) 1996. Challenge and Change in Language Teaching. Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann.
URI:	http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/3243

Request changes to a record

Actions (login required)

View Item