目前任务型语言教学是否适合中国高中英语学习者

     目前任务型语言教学是否适合中国高中英语学习者                  Istask-basedlanguageteachingsuitableforChinesehighschoolEnglishlearnersSunQianhuiUniversityofQueenslandIntroductionThisessaywillarguethattheTBLTisnotsuitedtoEnglishlearnersinhighschoolinChinaatpresent.TBLTasalanguageteachingmethodthatfocusesonmakinguseofthetasksasthetoolandemphasizesmeaningandcommunication(Ellis,2013).Besides,thePPPmodelteacheslanguagebasedontheteacher’spresentation,learner’spracticeandproduction,whichcombinetheclassicdeductiveapproachandnaturalcommunicativepractice.LotsofstudiesillustratedtheimportantroleofTBLTinlanguageteachinginChina(Xiqin,2004;Ziwen,2002;Weihua,2007).Also,somestudiespointedouttheTBLT/CLTcouldbeusedtoteachEnglishasaninternationallanguage,becausetheEILbroughtaboutthevarietyofEnglish(McKay,2002;Sharifian,2009).However,theyneglectthechallengesandlimitations.AlthoughtheTBLThasimpactedtheEnglishpedagogyworldwide,theimplementationoftask-basedlanguageteachingforthehighschoolEnglishlearnersisstillabigchallenge.MoreandmorestudiesfocusontheincompatibilitybetweenTBLTandtheChinesehighschooleducationalcontext(Carless,2009;Littlewood,2007;Adams&Newton,2009).ThisessaypointsoutthereasonwhyTBLTisnotsuitableandwhyPPPmodelcanbeusedtoteachEILinChinesehighschoolatpresent.Atfirst,thearticleproposesthattheTBLTissuitedtoteachEnglishasaninternationalEnglish,andthenthecounterargumentisproposedundertheChinesehighschoolsituation.Fromtheperspectiveofthestudent,teacher,classroomandinstitution,theessayprovethatPPPmodelismoresuitedtoteachEILintheChinesehighschoolatpresent.ExplanationofallkeyconceptsTBLTisalanguageapproachwhichemphasizestheutilizationofpurposefulandfunctionallanguagebaseontasks(Ellis,2013).Whenthestudentsparticipateinthetasks,theyshouldfocusonthemeaningandcommunicativecompetencesthroughthereal-worldtasks.Conversely,thetraditionallanguageteachingapproachesconcentrateonthelexicalforms,grammaticalknowledgeandphonologicalforms(Long,2000).Moreimportantly,theTBLThighlightsthelearner-centredforminsteadoftheteacher-controlledform.Bycontrast,TBLTencouragesthelearnerstoworkinpairsorgroupsandrelyontheirlanguageknowledgeandstrategiestocompletetasks(Ellis,2013).Additionally,presentation-practice-productionmodelisamethodthatisusedtoteachlanguage.Ithasthreephases,suchasteacher’spresentation,student’spracticeandfreeproduction.ThePPPmodelmovesfromhighteachercontroltowardsfreeproduction,soitallowsthelearnerstomovefromtheteacher’ssupporttowardsself-supportCarless(2009).Theteacherasinformantandconductorcontroltheclassinthepresentationstageandpracticestage.Afterwards,intheproductionstage,theteacherencouragesstudentstousethetargetlanguageinafreerway.Therefore,thePPPmodelfocusesongrammarandcommunication.Eventually,EnglishasanInternationalLanguage(EIL)meanswiththespreadofEnglishglobally,thepluralizationofEnglishformsproduceallaroundtheworld(McKay,2002).Therefore,EILleadstothevarietyandcomplexityofEnglish.EILimpliesanewwayofcommunicationbetweendifferentnationalitiesandcultures.EILandTBLTSharifian(2009)statedthatduetothecomplexrolesandstatusofEnglish,theteachingmodelsandmethodologiesrequiredtheTBLT/CLT,whichadaptstothevarietyandcomplexityofEnglishbynaturalcommunication.Similarly,McKay(2002)consideredthattraditionallanguageteachingisnolongerappropriateforthelanguagelearner.Morespecifically,thespreadofEnglishhasbroughtwiththecomplexityinuse,andtheessentialfunctionofEIListocommunicatewithothers.Therefore,theteachingmethodshouldadoptTBLTtoteachEnglishasaninternationallanguage.Moreover,theriseofinternationalcommunicationamongthepeoplecomefrompersecountries,socommunicationplaysasignificantroleinthemethodthatteachesEnglishasaninternationallanguage.Nevertheless,forChinesehighschool,therearelotsofchallengesandconstraintsatpresent.Student-relatedlimitationsFromtheEnglishlearner’sperspectives,therearetwomainlimitationsoftheimplementationofTBLTtoteachChinesehighschoolstudents.Firstofall,thecollegeentranceexaminationleadtohighschoolstudentsfocusongrammaticalaccuracy.Theinterviewfindingsrepresentedthatalmostalltheparticipantsexpressedtherequirementoftheteachers’moreexplanation(Yi&Thanh,2018).Thisresultofthestudyshowedthestudents’dependencyupontheteachers’instructionshadahighlevel.Therefore,theChineseEnglishlearnersrequiretheexplicitgrammarinstructionswhichguidedbytheteachersstepbystep.EventhoughtheEILrequirecommunication,italsoneedsthegrammaticalbasics.Withoutgrammaticalknowledge,thelearnerscannotcommunicatewithotherssuccessful.Inotherwords,theEILleadtoavarietyofgrammarsothatthelearnersneedtorealizethedifferencebetweenthestandardEnglishandChinglishsystematically(Henry,2010).Furthermore,theTBLTemphasizesthemeaningoflanguageintasks,soitrequiresthatlearnersparticipateinmeaning-centredtasks(Ellis2003).AlthoughtheTBLTincludesthefocusonformasthemethodthattransferslearners’attentiontolinguisticelementswhentheyariseincidentallyinlanguageclasses(Long,2000),TBLTdoesnotinvolvetheexplicitgrammarteachingandexplanationofgrammar.However,fromtheabove,notonlyareChinesehighschoolstudentsrequiredtofocusonthegrammarbecauseoftheexamination,buttheyalsorelyontheteachers’instruction.Hence,theChinesehighschoolstudentscannotstrayfromexplicitlygrammaticalinstructioncompletely.Moreover,Carless(2009)statedthatHongKongseniorschoolstudentspreferredtochoosePPPmodels.Accordingtotheresult,somelearnersfeelcomfortableandconfidentwiththePPPmodel,becauseitincludestheexplicitlygrammaticalinstruction.Inaddition,asfortheYi&Thanh’sstudy,themajorityoftheparticipants(eightinten)expressedthereluctanceforthelanguageclasswithoutthegrammaticalinstruction.Inotherwords,theparticipantscannotaccepttheTBLT,whichfocusesonthecommunicativetask(Yi&Thanh,2018).Forinstance,duetosomeChineseparticipantsfelttimidtoprovidetheideaswithouttheinstruction,thegroupdiscussionswerediscontinuedandhadlongsilences.Moreover,theChinesehighschoolstudents’averageEnglishproficiencylevelislimited,soitisquitedifficulttointegrateEILintotheclassroombyTBLTatpresent.Frommyperspective,thePPPmodelcanintroducetheEILbetterthanTBLT.Inotherwords,ChinesestudentsprefertorealizeEILthroughteacher’sinstructionandcommunication.Finally,fromtheHe&Li’sstudy,90%ofparticipantsstatedthatthroughtheteacher’spresentation,theyfeltlessanxiousmoreconfidenttocommunicatewithothers.Hence,thePPPmodelcanfacilitatethelearners’communicativemotivation.DuetotheChinesehighschoollearnerrequiretheexplicitgrammarexplanation,thePPPmodelcombinetheteacher’sguidanceandlearner’scommunicationinordertoteachEILinthecaseofChina.Teacher-relatedchallengesOnthebasisofteachers’perceptionofTBLT,therearetwofactorshindertheimplementationofTBLTinChinesehighschool.Ontheonehand,mostoftheteachersconsideredtheyhadlimitedknowledgeofTBLTinChina,sotheychoosetousethePPPmodeltoteachEnglishasaninternationallanguage.FromtheYuying&Freda&Angela’sresearch,mostChineseteachers(around80%oftheparticipants)indicatedtheyhadthelowlevelofcomprehensionofTBLTthroughself-report.TheconsequencesoftheresearchpointedoutthatmostoftheteachersdonotwanttoadopttheTBLTinChinabecausetheyhavenotclearcognitionhowtoimplementtheTBLTinlanguageclasses.Forexample,lackofthereliablespecificationofimplementationofTBLTinChinarenderstheteachersarepuzzledoverhowtoplaythecorrectrole.Infact,theteachersrealizedthewhatisEILthroughthePPPmodel,sotheywerefamiliarwithhowtoteachEILbyPPPmodel(Anderson,2016).Ontheotherhand,thelargestnumberoflanguageteachershavebeenfoundtoapproveoftheotherapproachesinsteadofTBLTtoteachEILinChina.Throughthequestionnaireandinterview,Carless(2009)reportedthathighschoolteachersinHongKongpreferredtoadoptthepresentation-practice-production(PPP)modeltoteachEnglishratherthanTBLT.ThePPPmodelasateacher-centredtoolrenderstheteacherperceivedtobeeasytocontroltheclasses.IncontrasttoPPPandtraditionalapproaches,theTBLTislesscontrolled.TheproductionphaseofPPPalsoinvolvestheinteractionsothatthelearnersgaintheopportunitiestocommunicatewithpeers.Therefore,theteacherstrendtocarryoutthePPPmodeltoteachEILinordertocontroltheclass.Furthermore,theTBLTismoretimeconsumingsothatitishardtobeusedforhighschoolEnglishlearnersinChinawhohaveburdensomestudy.IntheXinmin&Simonresearch,eachparticipantwasaskedtousetheTBLTinahighschoolclass.ThedataofTBLTclasswerecollectedbypre-lessoninterview,classroomobservationandpost-lessoninterview.Allthreeteacherswerebeyondthenormalcoursetime.TheypointedouttimepressureswereanobstacletoTBLT’simplementation.Inaword,themajorityoftheteacherswanttochoosethePPPmodeltoteachEIL.Basedonexternalfactors,infact,Liu (2015)statedthataround75%ofparticipantswhowerenotfamiliarwithTBLTindicatedtheywanttogettraining.Nevertheless,inordertorealizeandlearnTBLT,theteachersrequirealongtime,becausetheTBLTiscomplexandittransformstheteacher’sroletowardsanassistantonewhodemandsnewskillsanddifferentpointofviews(Samuda&Bygate,2008).Althoughtheteachersarewillingtogettraining,highschoolonlyhavefeweropportunities.Conversely,PPPmodelhascontinuedtoremainpopularasaparadigmfortheinitialteachertrainingcourse,suchastheCambridgeCELTAandtheTrinityCertTESOLandinmoreextensivepre-serviceteachereducationcoursearoundtheworld(Harris2015).Therefore,mostoftheteachersfamiliarwiththePPPmodel,whichneedslittletrainingandintroduction.Hence,becauseofthelimitedtrainingopportunity,thePPPmodelisabettermethodtoteachEILthanTBLTinChinesehighschool.Institutionandclassroom-relatedlimitationsAtpresent,theoverwhelmingmajorityofthehighschoolsfocusonexaminationandhaveexamination-orientedculture,becausethescoresofcollegeentranceexaminationdeterminetherankingsofthehighschoolinChina.Morespecifically,thehighschool’sreputationandattractionareimpactedbythefinalscore.Definitely,theexaminationisbasedonthelexical,grammatical,andsyntacticknowledge,whichareincompatiblewithTBLT(Shehadeh,2012).Thus,evenifsomeschoolintendtousetheTBLTinEnglishclasses,thepressurefromthedeclineingradeandexamination-orientedwillhindertheattempt(Adams&Newton,2009).Forinstance,ifahighschooladopttheTBLTinthelanguageclassroom,onaccountofthelackofexplicitlygrammaticalinstruction,theEnglishlearners’gradeswillgodownsothattherankingofthehighschoolgodown,andthentheparentsofstudentsdoubtthecompetenceoftheschool.Inmyopinions,theexamcultureissodeeplyrootedinsocioculturalhistoryinChinathattheimplementationofTBLTcannotcometrueinashortdurationoftime.IncontrasttotheTBLT,PPPmodelfocusonnotonlygrammarbutalsocommunication,soPPPmodelcanbeutilizedtoteachEILundertheexamination-orientedculture.Inaddition,thecollegeentranceexaminationinvolvesmanysubjects,soeachsubjectisassignedalimitedtimeinChinesehighschool.Inotherwords,thelimitedinstructiontimecannotsupporttheimplementationofTBLTinthelanguageclassroom.ThetimeofEnglishclassesistypicallylimitedtothreeorfourhoursperweek(Swan,2005).Atthesametime,theteachershouldteachnewcontentandknowledgeandimplementtheexamination-orientedteachinganddrillssothattheytendtoPPPmodelwhichspendslesstimeandyieldtwicetheresultwithhalftheeffort(Zhang&Hu,2010).Similarly,frommyperspective,thelimitedtimedoesnotgivesufficientspaceforteachersandstudentstoexplorethedevelopmentandinnovationsofTBLT.Morespecifically,TBLTspendslotsoftimeinordertoletthelearnerscommunicateinpairsorgroups,whereaseachEnglishclassjust40mins.IftheteacheradoptsTBLTintheclassroom,thelearnersmerelyaccomplishpartsoftheTBLT.Likewise,accordingtotheQi&Clare’sstudy,theclassroomobservationfoundouttheover90%participants’classesdidnotconformtothestandardofTBLT,becauseoflackofper-taskorpost-task.Onthecontrary,Carless(2009)pointedouttheteacherscompletedthePPPmodelinthenormalclasstimecommendably.Inaword,thelimitedclasstimedeterminethePPPmodelismoresuitedtoChinesehighschool.Finally,duetoChinahasalargepopulation,thenormalclasssizeisoftensomewherebetween50-70Englishlearners.ThelargeclasssizeisnotconducivetoTBTL,becausetheteachersarehardertocontroltheclassesandtoughertomanagethegroupwork(Littlewood,2007).Forexample,oneteacherusesTBLTinalargelanguageclass.Itistoodifficulttosuperviseclassroomdisciplineandmanagegroupinteractions.SomestudentsaredistractedanduseL1.Inthiscase,theteacherisconsideredirresponsible,andthestudentslearnnothing.However,thePPPmodelisateacher-centredapproachsothatithashighcontrolinthelanguageclass.Consequently,althoughtheTBLTisagreatmethodtolearnthelanguage,therealChinesesituationmakesithardtoimplementinhighschool.Meanwhile,thedynamiccommunicationisanessentialfactortoadapttothecomplexityofEIL.Definitely,thePPPmodelismoresuitedtoteachEILinChinesehighschool.PedagogicalimplicationsAswesayabove,theimplementationofTBLTencountersalotofchallengesinChinahighschoolatpresent.Therefore,theChinesepedagogyrequiresthetransitionalperiodtotakeinTBLT.IntermoftheeducationalsituationinChina,thetransitionalperiodwilllastalongtime.Duringthetransitionalperiod,weshouldexplorewaystosolvetheproblemsandreducethelimitation.Forexample,Lai,Zhao&Wang(2011)proposedthepsychologicalpreparationandstrategytrainingguidetheEnglishlearnerstoaccepttheTBLT.Meanwhile,AndonandEckerth(2009)putforwardasetofprovisionalspecificationsofTBLTsothattheteacherscanrealizetheTBLTeasily.Carless(2013)alsomentionedthatwecouldstartwiththesmall-scaleexperimentinordertoavoidthenegativeeffect.Inmyopinions,thePPPmodelisagreatmethodtoteachlanguageinChinesehighschool,soitasabridgeconnectsthetraditionalapproachandTBLT.ThetransformationoftheChineseeducationalsystemisaslowprocess.Hence,thetransitionalperiodrequiresscholarstoexploreandexperimentconstantly.ConclusionWeshouldacknowledgethelimitationsontheimplementationofTBLT.Asfarasitgoes,theTBLTisnotsuitedtoChinesehighschool.Theexamination-orientedcultureleadstothestudentsandteachersareunwillingtoaccepttheTBLTinChinesehighschool.TheteachersalsocannotgainsufficienttrainingabouttheTBLT.ThelimitedlearningtimeandrestrictedteachingtimeimposerestrictionsontheimplementationofTBLT.Moreover,TBLThasnegativeinfluencesonlargeclasssizebecauseitistoodifficulttocontrolandsupervisetheclassroom.Thus,tocarryouttheTBLTinChinesehighschoolisnotagoodideaatpresent.Conversely,thePPPmodeladaptstonotonlyEILbutalsoexamination-orientedculture.Meanwhile,itspendslesstimeandeasiertobeacceptedbyteachersandlearnersincontrasttoTBLT.Further,thePPPmodelhashighercontrolinclassthanTBLT.Accordingly,thePPPmodelismoreappropriateforChinesehighschoolstudentswholearnEnglishasaninternationallanguage.Finally,duringthetransitionalperiod,theteachercanadoptthePPPmodelasthepointofjunctionbetweenthetraditionalapproachandTBLT.Atthesametime,scholarsshouldexplorethewaysthatconnecttheChineseeducationalsystemandTBLT.ReferenceAdams, R.,& Newton, J. (2009).“TBLTinAsia:Opportunitiesandconstraints”. AsianJournalofEnglishLanguageTeaching, 19, 1–17.AndersonJ. (2016). ‘Whypracticemakesperfectsense:thepast,presentandpotentialfutureofthePPPparadigminlanguageteachereducation’ELTEducationandDevelopment19:14–22.Andon, N.,& Eckerth, J. (2009).“Chacunàsongout?Task-basedL2pedagogyfromtheteacher’spointofview”. InternationalJournalofAppliedLinguistics, 19, 286–310.Carless, D. (2009).“RevisitingtheTBLTversusP-P-Pdebate:VoicesfromHongKong”. AsianJournalofEnglishLanguageTeaching, 19, 49–66.Carless, D. (2013). Innovationinlanguageteachingandlearning.In C.A. Chapelle (Ed.), Theencyclopediaofappliedlinguistics. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Ellis,R.(2003).Task-basedLanguageLearningandTeaching.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Ellis, R. (2013).“Task-basedlanguageteaching:Respondingtothecritics”. UniversityofSydneyPapersinTESOL, 8, 1–27.Harmer,J.(2009).ThePracticeofEnglishLanguageTeaching(4thedn).Harlow:Longman.He,D.,&Li,D.C.S.(2009).Languageattitudesandlinguisticfeaturesinthe‘ChinaEnglish’debate.WorldEnglishes,28(1),70e89.Henry,E.S.(2010).Interpretationsof‘Chinglish’:nativespeakers,languagelearnersandtheenregistermentofastigmatizedcode.LanguageinSociety,39(5),669e688.HarrisB.(2015).‘Wherearewenow?Currentteachingparadigmsinpre-servicetraining’.Paperpresentedatthe49thInternationalIATEFLAnnualConference,Manchester,UK.Jenkins,J.(2006).CurrentperspectivesonteachingWorldEnglishesandEnglishasaLinguaFranca.TESOLQuarterly,40(1),157-181.Littlewood,W.(2007). Communicativeandtask-basedlanguageteachinginEastAsianclassrooms.LanguageTeaching,40, 243–249. Liu, Y. (2015).Task-basedlanguageteaching(TBLT)inChinesehighereducation:EFLteachers’perceptions.PhDdiss.,UniversityofLimerick.Long,M.H.(2000).“FocusonForminTask-BasedLanguageTeaching.”InLanguagePolicyandPedagogy:EssaysinHonorofA.RonaldWalton,editedbyR.LambertandE.Shohamy,179–192.Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins.McKay,S.L.(2002).TeachingEnglishasanInternational Language. Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.QiC.,&ClareW.(2016)ContextualizationandauthenticityinTBLT:VoicesfromChineseclassrooms.Sagejournals,21,517-538Samuda, V.,& Bygate, M. (2008). Tasksinsecondlanguagelearning. NewYork: PalgraveMacmillan.Shehadeh, A.,& Coombe, C.A. (2012). Task-basedlanguageteachinginforeignlanguagecontexts:Researchandimplementation. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.Sharifian,F.(2009).EnglishasanInternationalLanguage:PerspectivesandPedagogicalIssues.Bristol:MultilingualMatters.Swan, M. (2005).“Legislationbyhypothesis:Thecaseoftask-basedinstruction”. AppliedLinguistics, 26(3), 376–401.Xiqin,L.(2004).AuthenticityandTBLTactivitydesign.JournalofTeachingEnglishinChina,5,pp.81-84.XinminZ.,&SimonB.(2013)Task-basedlearningandteachinginChina:Secondaryschoolteachers’beliefsandpractices.Sagejournals,18,205-221YiJ.&ThanhP.(2018):Implementingtask-basedlanguageteaching(TBLT)toteachgrammarinEnglishclassesinChina:usingdesign-basedresearchtoexplorechallengesandstrategies,InnovationinLanguageLearningandTeaching,DOI:10.1080/17501229.2018.1545021YuyingL.,FredaM.&AngelaC. (2018) InvestigatingEFLteachers’perceptionsoftask-basedlanguageteachinginhighereducationinChina, TheLanguageLearningJournal,DOI: 10.1080/09571736.2018.1465110Zhang, Y.F.,& Hu, G.W. (2010). Betweenintendedandenactedcurricula:ThreeteachersandamandatedcurricularreforminmainlandChina.In K. Menken (Ed.). Negotiatinglanguagepoliciesinschools:Educatorsaspolicymakers. pp. 123–140.Ziwen.L.(2002).Thebriefintroductiontotask-basedEnglishteaching.JournalofEducationalStudies,6,pp.26-31. -全文完-