Lesson Plan Rationale and Evaluation

TESOL Methodology

Introduction

There has been an ongoing debate concerning the methodology of English teaching/learning. Traditionally, language learning has

been regarded as a process of mastering separate steps. Teachers present the target language in ready-to-assimilate pieces and teaching

moves from easy to difficult parts. Learners must learn all the parts and integrate them into their knowledge. For example, the PPP

model of language teaching believes that through controlled practice, the “structure of the day” can be achieved (Foster, 1999, P. 69).

However, based on research findings in linguistics and psychology, the contemporary view towards language learning is that learners

acquire the language in a specific order regardless of how it is arranged by others. It is a developmental and organic process, which

follows its own internal agenda. As Ellis (1994) suggests, errors won’t necessarily be the result of bad learning. They are part of the

interlanguage, which leads to the acquisition of the target language. Based on this perspective, task-based approach and communicative

approach are the most popular teaching methods currently. Some proponents of task-based approach regard it as a logical development

of communicative language teaching/learning because it includes some of its principles such as “activities in which language is used for

carrying out meaningful tasks promote learning” (Richards & Rogers, 2001, P. 223).

This is one lesson of a compulsory English course for university 2nd year English-major students. These students come from different

parts of the country with, on average intermediate English proficiency level while individuals may vary.

First, this assignment provides a rationale, which mainly deals with the debate concerning the definition of “task” and task-based

learning/teaching. In addition, it clarifies why certain model, activity and task are chosen. In the second part, it evaluates the lesson plan

in aspects of the focus on form and meaning, its objectives and the merits and demerits of using authentic materials. What’s more, it

evaluates whether all the students’ needs are met and what might be inappropriate when planning a task-based lesson.

Rationale

Firstly, I will introduce briefly what a task means for a language class before applying task-based teaching to the class. The

definition of task has caused a heated debate. Long (1985, P. 89) defines a task as “a piece of work undertaken for oneself or for others,

freely or for some reward. It means the hundred and one things people do in everyday life, at work, at play, and in between.” However,

this definition seems indifferent to language teaching and learning. Nunan (1989, P.10) offers another definition, which seems to be

more relevant in a classroom. He states that, “the communicative task is a complete piece of classroom work which involves learners in

comprehending, manipulating, producing or interacting in the target language.” At the same time, he emphasizes that more focus should

be placed on meaning instead of form. Ellis (2003), later on, defines a task as “a work plan that requires learners to process language

pragmatically in order to achieve an outcome that can be evaluated in terms of whether the correct or appropriate propositional content

has been conveyed”. In fact, “task” has also been defined in many other ways because Sanchez (2004, P. 39) explains that “scholars do

not approach the topic from the nature of the task itself in real life, but rather from specific methodological preconceptions, which act as

filters to the further description of the object of study.”

I prefer Ellis’ definition of “task” because as Izadpanah (2010, P. 50) suggests, “Ellis’ definition is very pedagogical because it

includes attention to meaning as well as inclusion of pragmatic properties.” Though the definitions vary, Nunan states that, “they all

emphasize the fact that tasks involve communicative language use in which the user’s attention is focused on meaning rather than

grammatical form (2006, P. 17).” However, he explains that this does not mean form is not important. Meaning and form are highly

interrelated and language users use grammar to express different communicative meanings (Nunan, 2006, P.17). This is one of the

reasons why I spare some more time to pre-task and task circles than to language focus stage instead of totally ignoring learning the

language. This issue will be further discussed in the evaluation of the lesson plan.

When the definition of task makes sense, it is important to know what is task-based language teaching and learning. Richards &

Rogers claim that task-based approach is “based on the use of tasks as the core unit of planning and instruction in language teaching

(Richards & Rogers, 2001, P. 223)”. “From some scholars’ perspective, tasks are a means for activating learners prior L2 knowledge by

developing fluency (Oxford, 2006, P. 94)”. However, Ellis (2003) distinguished task supported teaching, which is proposed by the

scholars mentioned above, and task-based teaching, “in which tasks comprise the foundation of the whole curriculum”. From my

perspective, in task-based teaching and learning, tasks should not only be used to activate learners’ prior knowledge or promote their

interest and motivation. More importantly, learners should be able to acquire some language structure or vocabulary without paying

particular attention to them while accomplishing the task. And this is the reason why I set drawing and describing the pictures as the

main tasks. Learners should not beard it in mind that skimming the text and taking a close look at the words of contrast are the

objectives of the class. Instead, they should try to skim the text and use vocabulary of contrast because they are required to accomplish

the task in time.

There are mainly three models of task-based approach, namely, Long’s (1985) model, Nunan’s (2004) model and Willis’ (1996)

model. Long’s model presents a focus on form, which involves meaning, structure, and the context of communication (Oxford, 2006, P.

111). The difference between Nunan’s and Willis’ model is that Nunan’s focus on form occurs before the communicative activities and

the task while Willis’ focus on form occurs after the task. I choose to use Willis’ model which includes Pre-task, Task, and Language focus

stages because according to Oxford, this model effectively combines meaning and form and the communicative task comes before the

focus on form. He also points out that another special feature is that students not only do the task but also report on it (2006, P. 110).

This, according to Swain’s “Output Hypothesis” (Swain, 1985), helps the process of second language learning.

Within this model, interactive activities such as discussion, description, report etc. account for a particular big part of all the

activities in the lesson plan because according to Ramirez (1995), students’ interaction during the tasks facilitate transfer of information

they have leant in the past and integrates new information they receive while completing the task. Pica, Kanagy and Falodun (1993)

further demonstrate that interactive tasks are sometimes considered particularly beneficial when learners have to transfer information

to a partner, who does not have it.

Pre-cycle task

According to Willis (1996), pre-task cycle is a preparing period, which enables the students to take an active part in exploring the topic.

Students can hear or see a similar task being done, but the solution to the class task can’t be provided (Willis, 1996). Teacher in this

stage gives students a description of the changes in his/her own hometown, which highlights but not teaches words or phrases (Willis,

1996) that can be useful when the students complete the task. According to Sanchez, the most commonly accepted principle in learning

is guided by the transition from simplicity to complexity (2004, P. 57) and this is why the activities or pre-task at this stage are more

about casual talk concerning students’ or teacher’s own experiences.

At the same time, the discussion and report concerning the changes in their hometowns activates their schemata and promotes

their motivation. The word “Schema” was first used in psychology as “an active organization of past reactions or experiences” (Barlett,

1932, P. 201). Later on, it was introduced by Carrell (1981) to reading, indicating the vital role of previous knowledge in reading

comprehension. Guiding students to discuss in groups and report to the whole class about the changes in this stage is necessary because

they need to rely on what they learnt before to conduct these activities and reading comprehension in the task cycle takes place

successfully because their schemata are activated. What’s more, as Littlewood points out and telling from the phenomenon that much

work has been done to know more about motivation to learn (Dornyei, 2001), it is vital to aiming at as high a level of task involvement

as possible (2004, P. 323). After discussion and report, teacher summarizes what the students have produced. Meanwhile, teacher

provides some intriguing questions, which draw students’ attention gradually from their surroundings to the text in class. As Oxford

puts it, the person’s familiarity with the topic mitigates the difficulties even if the linguistic materials are complex (2006, P. 104).

Through discussion and report dependent on their schemata, students are engaged in the topic and motivated. Several questions

following this starting point guide students to the reading material with several elements added, which means gaining in complexity

(Sanchez, 2004, P. 56), while keeping them active and interested.

Task cycle

In this cycle, the task is done by the students and they use whatever language they have to express themselves in response to reading a

text or listening to a recording (Willis, 1996). This stage mainly involves reading, completing the task, planning and report. During

reading drawing, discussing and preparing, teacher walks around and monitors, providing help if necessary. However, at this time

teacher had better not focus too much on form and correct them because the emphasis is on spontaneous, exploratory talk and

confidence building (Willis, 1996). According to James and Gardner (1995), individuals differ in how they learn. Also, Pumfrey states

that reading is a process that requires thought (1977, P. 2). In the reading process, students have some individual study time to deal

with the text in front of them.

The first part of reading is aiming at developing students’ basic reading skills such as skimming because a skilled fluent reader

should be able to process words rapidly and automatically and form a general meaning within limited time (Grabe, 2002, P. 14).

However, the amount of time allotted for students to complete the task is a key factor, especially for beginners, because if the task is

“speeded” the task appears to be more difficult for them, while an “unspeeded” task takes off some pressure (Oxford, 2006, P. 102). The

second part of reading together with the activity “drawing” are aiming at raising students’ awareness of and training their ability of

interpreting the text by themselves. As a current reading model suggests, good readers should be able to interact with texts, drawing on

their background and other skills (Grabe, 2002). Some scholars also notice that readers are not only interacting and taking meaning, at

the same time, they create and make meaning. In this process, student should begin and get familiar with forming his or her own picture

of the text in their brain. Some critics argue that reader response theory is too subjective because it allows readers to interpret the text

in any way they want to. Reader response theory also makes teaching and assessing more difficult because there is no certain standard

according to which teachers and check students’ understanding. According to Fowler, saying that reader is everything is misleading.

Text is important, reader is important, and the interpretive community, which provides the context in which the text and the reader

interacting is important (1991, P. 26). Probably there is no standard for understanding and we can make optimal use of reader response

theory when a balance between text and reader is achieved.

In terms of teaching literacy, a traditional way divides the whole complex process into separate parts. However, Kucer and Silva

(2006) propose an approach that integrates what they call the four dimensions of literacy: cognitive, linguistic, sociocultural, and

developmental. As applied in this lesson plan, students begin with discovery, construction and sharing of meaning and they go further

and further from cognitive to linguistic, and to sociocultural dimensions. All the dimensions influence each other, and this, finally, results

in the occurrence of the developmental dimension.

Though insisted by Krashen (1985) that comprehensible input is the only key factor for second language acquisition, Swain (1985)

and Scarcella and Oxford (1992) emphasize the importance of students’ output, through interaction with others, in task situations.

There is evidence showing that productive skills are poor in students who are with a high degree of comprehensible input (Sheen, 1994,

P. 136). As for which type of task interaction, for example, two-way (Long, 1985) or multi-way (Crookall & Oxford, 1990) etc., is more

effective, Pica et al. (1993) reports that meaning negotiation is more likely to occur when each student holds a different portion of

information and they need to request and supply this information to each other. Each individual interprets the text differently and they

have different focus, thus they still have different portion of information to share in the next activities, which are discussion, planning,

and report. As suggested by Long & Porter (1985), discussion in groups results in “greater amount of output and negotiation of meaning

than that in teacher-fronted classes”. Sanchez adds that, “language learning tasks are useless for communicative purposes if they do not

engage learners in communication (2004, P. 53)”.

Planning prepares students for the report and during this period, students share their ideas and help the spokesperson polish and

correct their language (Willis, 1996). Foster and Skehan (1996) also report that giving learners time to plan before they start a task

significantly increases the complexity, accuracy, and fluency of the language they use. Discussion and planning play a vital role in helping

students form a more integrated picture in their mind and meanwhile, changing a high-stakes requirement into a low-stakes one

(Skehan, 1996), which assist them in reducing their pressure and anxiety. At last, some representatives report their results to the whole

class and other students can compare or comment. Teacher comments and summarizes while still not providing overt public correction

due to the reason mentioned above. Admittedly, according to some research statistics, interaction and output might not be essential. It

actually depends on the task purpose (Oxford, 2004). In this lesson, interaction helps students with their learning process and output

functions well in helping teacher monitor what students have acquired. At the end of this stage, teacher guides students to pay attention

to form, which leads to the next cycle.

Language focus and Follow up

After discussion, which places emphasis on fluency, and report, which stimulates students to start paying attention to accuracy, teacher

sets language-focused tasks based on what students have read and conduct practice activities (Willis, 1996) which recycle and reinforce

what they have learnt in the lesson. As Nunan (2004) says, recycling maximizes learning opportunities. The activity “vanishing words”

repeats what the students have learnt in the previous stages. It is not only fun to the students but also practical for teachers to adjust the

difficulty degree according to students’ English proficiency level.

Different from the previous two stages, this stage pays more attention to form and accuracy. Some scholars hold that no structures

should be discussed. For example, Long and Crookes (1992, P. 28) insist that the understanding of language structure must come from

the learner, who might or might not perceive the regularities or rules. Doughty (2003) even states that teachers’ role is just to provide

students opportunities for L2 exposure. However, some researches do not support the claim that “instructed learning” is a failure

(Sanchez, 2004, P. 61). According to Sanchez, formal instruction is connected to deductive methodologies (2004, P. 64) and Sheen

reveals that experimental research on methods indicates that deductive methods or their variants produce better results than inductive

ones (1994, P. 129-130). From my opinion, what is important is the integration of formal instruction within meaning-centered activities,

which is the advantage of Willis’ model.

In teaching vocabulary, Nation (2001) prefers a systematic rather than an incidental approach, from which vocabulary learnt is just

a by-product. Teaching vocabulary should be an important part of the course. Meanings of words are not settled because they vary in

different contexts (Gee, 2009). Therefore, simply connecting form and meaning seems to be an out of date way of teaching vocabulary.

This is why the first activity encourages students to look for vocabulary by themselves instead of showing them directly and giving them

definitions. Integrating vocabulary teaching with reading has its advantage because the text provides examples and context, in which

students use their own knowledge and feelings to focus on what they understand by this word (Scrivener, 2006). However, those

vocabulary will not become part of the students’ “spontaneous repertoire” until they have time to “assimilate” it (Willis, 2007, P. 18).

This is why a follow-up homework is arranged. Before doing their assignment, they will have to review again what they have learnt in

class because what they are required to do is closely related to it. The two topics are aiming at training their ability either in interpreting

texts or using vocabulary respectively. When they try to use the vocabulary to produce their output, they are getting closer and closer to

take them in as their own property.

Evaluation

My choice of using task-based teaching in my lesson plan mainly results from its advantages over other approaches. Krahnke (1987)

explains that task-based approach develops “communicative competence which includes linguistic, sociolinguistic, discourse and

strategic competence through the need of understanding (P. 59)” and that “language is provided by teachers but discovered by learners”.

Later on, Nunan adds that task-based teaching has strengthened several principles and practices such as “an emphasis on learning to

communicate through interaction in the target language”, “the opportunities for learners to focus not only on the language itself but also

on the learning process”, more emphasis on learners’ personal experiences and the link between the language in and out of the

classroom (2006, P. 14).

Admittedly, it could be successful for adult learners who are at advanced level and have a high degree of motivation and are willing

to take risks in the target language. However, Powers argues that task-based teaching requires a high level of creativity and initiative on

the part of the teacher and comprehensible target language input is limited. As mentioned previously, different individuals have different

characters and learning preferences. Many students still prefer traditional ways of teaching which is teacher fronted and with little

interaction. Task-based approach relies heavily on student motivation and commitment (Powers, 2008, P. 73). If those students are

thrown into a task-based classroom all of a sudden, they will probably feel uncomfortable and reluctant to take part in some of the tasks.

Also, different students in one class are different in English proficiency levels. As Bourke (2006) points out, a special consideration

should be given to students whose language abilities are still developing and teachers must pay more attention when choosing

appropriate tasks for their level. It is essential that teachers should always check whether the tasks are effective for specific group of

students. Therefore, in such a lesson, the phenomenon could emerge that students with higher proficiency and students who are more

active will benefit more from it than those comparatively weak or shy students. From my perspective, the problems concerning the

teacher and the input can be solved through the use of authentic texts and the employment of native speakers.

According to Nunan (1988, P. 99), authentic materials are those that "reflect the outside world," and "have been produced for

purposes other than to teach language". The text chosen is an authentic text called “A Fable for Tomorrow”. In the past, it was widely

accepted that authentic materials have lots of advantages in second language acquisition. Rogers and Medley (1988, P. 467) define them

as 'appropriate' in terms of goals, objectives, learner needs and interest, and 'natural' in terms of real life and meaningful

communication. Guariento and Morley (2001, P. 347) propose that authentic materials are significant because they increase students'

motivation for learning and expose learners to the 'real' language. However, as time goes by, problems emerge as authentic materials

become widely used. Richards (2001, P. 253) points out that despite those advantages, “authentic materials often contain difficult

language, unneeded vocabulary items and complex language structures, which causes a burden for the teacher in lower-level classes”.

He also reveals that, “authentic materials may be too culturally biased (Richards, 2001)”, so authentic texts may not only cause

difficulties for the learning of students but also may affect their cultural identity and have negative effects on their motivation.

Avoidance to the disadvantages lies in careful choice of the texts. Guariento & Morley (2001) suggest that authentic materials should be

used in accordance with students' ability and add that suitable tasks can be given to learners in which complete understanding is not

important.

This text is chosen based on the learners’ average level of English proficiency, their cultural background and the tasks. Additionally,

a text, which provides two dramatically different pictures in a same town over different periods of time, is chosen because the same

thing might have happened to the learners’ hometown, thus, making it possible that what they learn in the classroom relates closely to

their life. As Krahnke (1987) puts it, “Connecting tasks to real-life situations contextualizes language in a meaningful way and provides

large amounts of input and feedback”. Last but not least, Richards (2001, P. 118) indicates that teachers and students should take an

active part in the examination of important social and personal problems and seek ways to deal with them. I agree to his opinion when

choosing the text because we learn language not only for ourselves for academic or economic reasons, what is more important is that we

learn and make use of it to create a better society and world.

As suggested above, Willis’ (1996) model is applied because it combines and keeps a balance between meaning and form, while

placing the focus on meaning before on form. However, the debate, concerning form or meaning, which should come first, and which is

more important, has never stopped. Some scholars show concern to the scant attention to form. Skehan (1996) suggests that, “excessive

focus on meaning during task completion will confine learners to the strategic solutions they develop and pay little attention to

structural change or accuracy”. Foster (1999, P. 69) points out that this will lead to fluent but unchallenging or inaccurate language as

student can use their ill-formed language to convey meaning with the assistance of gesture or intonation successfully. In my lesson plan,

I put meaning before form and spend comparatively more time on meaning than on form as I mentioned above because I want to set the

tasks as realistic communication motivators and as opportunities to trigger acquisition processes (Skehan, 1996, P. 42) while keeping a

balance between the two aspects. It is hard to say whether students can really learn the vocabulary only through the last stage, which

accounts for 26.7% of the whole class. It might work well if students learn the form first and practice afterwards at the cost of being

demotivated.

Based on Richards’ description of the characteristics of objective statements, they should “describe a learning outcome, be precise,

feasible and consistent with the curriculum aim (2001, P. 124)”. However, I combine content objectives, language objectives and learning

outcomes in the lesson objectives in order to avoid turning teaching into a technology and ignoring some non-language outcomes

(Richards, 2001, P. 127-128). In this way, objectives, such as “raising awareness” that can’t be stated or measured as an outcome, but is

still significant, can also be included. Though “students that knew where they were learned much faster than students who had not been

provided with course objectives” (Brown 1995), I still choose not to provide students with lesson objectives owing to my concern for

their excessive focus on form. If I provide them with lesson objectives at the very beginning, they will keep that in mind and pay more

attention to form when reading, discussing, and reporting, which makes tasks exist in name only.

Unlike this lesson plan, some scholars such as Breen, (1987b, P. 164) suggests that the sequencing of tasks can’t be worked out in

advance. According to him, sequencing depends on the identification of learning problems, prioritizing of particular problems and

identification of appropriate learning tasks (1987b, P. 164). Admittedly, in this lesson, planning in advance the sequencing of tasks or

activities within them does not appear to be learner or learning centered. Students are deprived of the opportunities of “building their

own learning path (Sanchez, 2004, P. 59). However, as Sanchez implies, “real teachers and real learners are in favor of planning in

advance sometimes with sound arguments on their side. Classroom environment and practice appear to overweight theoretical and

abstract conceptualisations (Sanchez, 2004, P. 59). What’s more, if the choice and sequencing of tasks are not planned in advance, it

requires a very high level of creativity and initiative on the part of the teacher (Powers, 2008, P. 73). Therefore, the challenge is to offer a

planned sequencing of tasks based on the students’ needs and without affecting learners’ linguistic potential.

Conclusion

In this assignment, the author tries to create an interesting lesson plan, which asks learners to process language pragmatically

(Ellis, 2003). An authentic text is chosen for its linguistic and social environmental purposes. With pre-set and well-organized tasks,

students are required to discover and acquire the language through completing the tasks either by themselves or in groups. Form and

meaning are all emphasized while the previous goal, which may be a distracter of learners’ attention, comes after in this lesson. In the

pre-task and task cycles, interactive activities such as discussion and report account for a big portion owing to their advantages

mentioned above. Language focus cycle comes after because some concern is given to the maintenance of learners’ interest and

motivation while learning the language for accuracy should not be totally neglected. Individual differences in learning as well as

personal characters are also taken into consideration with individual study time, teacher going around and providing help if necessary.

All in all, this lesson plan, thought not perfect, is improved than the author’s previous lesson plans.

References Barlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. London: New Psychological Linguistics. Shanghai:

Shanghai Foreign Education Publication.

Bourke, J. M. (2006). Designing a topic- based syllabus for young learners. ELT Journal, 60(3), 279-286.

Breen, M. P. (1987b). Contemporary paradigms in syllabus design. Language Teaching, 20 (3), 157-174.

Brown, J. D. (1995). The elements of language curriculum: a systematic approach to program development. Boston, Mass: Heinle &

Heinle.

Carrell, P. L. (1981) et al. (eds.) Interactive Approaches to second Language Reading. Cambridge: CUP.

Crookall, D. and Oxford, R. (1990). Simulation, gaming, and language learning. Boston: Heinle/Thomson.

Dornyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and Researching Motivation. London: Longman.

Doughty, C. (2003). Instructed SLA. In C. Doughty and M. Long (Eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell

Publishing.

Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

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

Foster, P. (1999). Key concepts in ELT. ELT Journal, 53(1), 69-70.

Foster, P. and Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition, 9, 12-20.

Fowler, R. M. (1991). Let the reader understand: reader-response criticism and the Gospel of Mark. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Gee, J. (2009) Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses. Oxon: Routledge.

Grabe, W. (2002) Dilemmas for the Development of Second Language Reading Abilities. In J.C. Richards and W.A. Renandya.

Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Guariento, W. & Morley, J. (2001). Text and task authenticity in the EFL classroom. ELT Journal 55(4), 347-353.

Honeyfield, J. (1993). Responding to task difficulty. In M. Tickoo (Ed.), Simplification: Theory and practice, pp. 127-138. Singapore:

Regional Language Center.

Izadpanah, S. (2010). A study on Task-based Language Teaching: From theory to practice. US-China Foreign Language, 8(3), 47-56.

James, W. & Gardner, D. (1995). Learning styles: Implications for distance learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education.

67.

Krahnke, K. (1987). Approaches to syllabus design for foreign language teaching. Washington, D. C. Center for Applied

Linguistics/Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Krashen, S. D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis. London: Longman.

Kucer, S. B. & Silva, C. (2006). Teaching the Dimensions of Literacy. Mahwah, N. J: L Elbaum and Associates.

Littlewood, W. (2004). The task-based approach: some questions and suggestions. ELT Journal, 58(4), pp. 319-326.

Long, M. & Porter, P. (1985). Group work, interlanguage and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 207-228.

Long, M. H. & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly, 26(10), 27-56.

Long, M. H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language training. In K. Hyltenstam and M.

Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and Assessing Second Language Acquisition, pp. 77-99. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Long, M. H. and G. Crookes, (1987). Intervention points in second language classroom processes. in B. K. Das (ed.). Patterns in classroom

intervention in Southeast Asia. 177-203. Singapore: Singapore University Press IRELC.

Nation, I.S.P. (2001) Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, D. (1988). The Learner-Centered Curriculum. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, D. (1989). Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

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

Nunan, D. (2006). Task-based Language Teaching in the Asia Context: Defining “Task”. Asian EFL Journal, 8(3), pp. 12-18.

Oxford, R. L. (2006). Task-based Language Teaching and learning: An overview. Asian EFL Journal, 8(3), pp. 94-121.

Pica, T., Kanagy, R. and Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language instruction and research. In

G. Crookes and S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice, pp. 9-34. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual

Matters.

Powers, D. (2008). Task-based Instruction: From Concepts to the Classroom. TESOL Working Paper Series, 6(2).

Pumfrey, P. D. (1977). Measuring Reading Abilities: Concepts, Sources and Applications. London: Hodder & Stoughton.

Ramirez, A. G. (1995). Creating contexts for second language acquisition: Theory and methods. New York: Longman.

Richards, J. and Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rogers, C. V. & Medley, F. W. (1988). Language with a purpose: Using authentic materials in the foreign language classroom. Foreign

Language Annals, 21, 467-478.

Sanchez, A. (2004). The Task-based Approach in Language Teaching. IJES, 4(1), pp. 39-71.

Scarcella, R. C. and Oxford, R. L. (1992). The tapestry of language learning: The individual in the communicative classroom. Boston:

Heinle & Heinle.

Sheen, R. (1994). A critica1analysis of the advocacy of the Task-Based syllabus. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), pp. 127-151.

Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for implementing task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38-62.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In

S. Gass and C. Madden (Eds.), Input and second language acquisition, pp. 235-252. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.

Willis, D. (2007). Doing Task-based Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Willis, J. (1996). A flexible framework for task-based learning. In J. Willis and D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and Change in Language

Teaching, pp. 52-62. Oxford: Heinemann.

Lesson Plan Title: A fable for tomorrow Time: 90 minutes

Class Profile: This class is a university class for 2nd year students. The students all study English but different majors, which are General English, English Translation and Interpretation and English Teaching. This class has a mixture of different students coming form different parts of the country, with different learning styles. Level: All of them are English major students so the average level of the students is upper-intermediate, which is around Brand Score 6-7 in IELTS. Due to the imbalance of education in different parts of this country, some students have reached the advanced level while some others, who need extra support, are still below the intermediate level. A majority of the students have generally effective command of the language despite some inaccuracies, inappropriacies and misunderstandings. They are able to use and understand fairly complex language, particularly in familiar situations. Previous learning: Students have a basic grasp of some skills of reading. For example, Skimming, scanning and gaining a basic understanding of a fairly complex text. Students are familiar with all the tenses in Grammar and have basic command of them. Students are familiar with some words such as, prosperous, abundance, deserted, attractive, etc. and know how to use them in certain context. Students have met some words such as, flicker, creep, sweep, moribund, throb, and wither, and have some idea of them but are not clear of how to use them properly. Students have been introduced to synonyms and antonyms.

Students are familiar with basic writing skills and have been practicing them. Lesson Objectives: Content Objectives: To remind students of how the earth has changed and what has been done. To raise students’ awareness of the effects of pollution and the importance of environment protection. Language Objectives: To consolidate and recycle students’ skills in reading, for example, skimming and scanning. To encourage students to interpret the text by their own. To raise students’ awareness of vocabulary choice in the text. Learning Outcomes: By the end of this lesson, students will understand, spot, describe and retrieve information proficiently. start to interpret texts by themselves. get familiar with vocabulary of contrast and the use of it. learn to use those unfamiliar words from this text in their own writing. have a deep impression of environmental problem and a better awareness of environment protection.

Stage of the Lesson

Time Teacher Activity Student Activity Interaction (Ss-Ss or T-Ss or Ss-T)

Materials

Key: S=students/ Ss=students/ FB=Feedback/ The numbers in the column “Materials” are correspondent to the numbers in Teaching Materials. Pre-task Cycle: 21 min Introduction

2 min Show Ss pictures of T’s hometown in the past and now, have short and casual talk about it.

Look at the pictures and listen to the T about the changes.

T-Ss Pictures of T’s hometown (No.1)

Activity 1 Discussion

8 min Divide 20 Ss into 4 groups (A,B,C,D) with 5 Ss in each group. Ask them to describe to other group members what their hometowns looked like when they were children and how they look like today. Walk around the Ss and offer help if they ask to. (Suggest Ss not focus too much on form)

Think about their hometown in the past and nowadays. Describe it to other members in the group.

Ss-Ss, work in group(mostly), T-Ss (sometimes)

Activity 2 Preparation and Report

8 min Ask Ss to nominate a spokesperson in each group. Tell the groups that in 2 min their spokesperson will be asked to report his description and the other group members can help him with preparation.

Ss in each group nominate a spokesperson. The spokesperson prepares his speech while the other members help him to revise or organize. The spokesperson

Ss-Ss, S-the whole class

Ask one or two spokespersons to present their description of their hometown in 2-3 min.

presents his description to the whole class.

Summary

3 min Summarize the report(s) in several words concerning the changes. Asking Ss one supplementary question: What will your hometown be like in the future? Will it get better or worse? Will your hometown have the same fate as the town in the text? Give Ss 1 min to think about them.

Ss listen to T’s summary and think about the answers to the questions.

T-Ss, Individual

Task Cycle: 40 min Activity 3 Reading

6 min Give Ss the text and ask them to read it through quickly and have a basic idea of it.

Ss read the text and gain a basic understanding of it.

Individual The text “A fable for tomorrow” (No.2)

Activity 4 Further reading & Drawing

20min Tell the Ss that each group is going to draw a picture briefly of what is described in the text. Tell Group A & B to draw the town in the past while Group C & D draw the current town. Guide Ss in different groups to pay more attention to different paragraphs according to which

Ss in different groups read the text again and in detail. (10 min) Ss in Group A & B draw a picture of the past town while Ss in Group C & D draw a picture of the current town. (10 min)

Individual, Work in group S-T (sometimes and if necessary)

The text, (No.2) Colour pens, Pieces of paper

town (in the past or at present) they are going to draw. Walk around the Ss to see whether they need any assistance. (Suggest Ss not focus too much on form)

Ask the T for help if they need any.

Activity 5 Review

6 min Ask Ss to put away their texts and try to describe the picture the draw within their group. Ask each group to nominate a spokesperson and prepare for 2 min to speak in front of the class. Walk around to offer help.

Each S describes the picture they draw in the group for 1 min. Each group nominates a spokesperson and get prepared with other members helping.

Ss-Ss Work in group S-T (sometimes and if necessary)

The pictures they draw

Activity 6 Report

6 min Ask one S from Group A & B and another from Group C & D to report their description to the whole class. Type in the words used in the text and used by Ss in their report in a PPT slide (not shown to the students)

One S from Group A or B and one S from Group C or D report their work.

S-the whole class The pictures they draw

Summary 2 min Summarize Ss’ report Guide students to look at the screen and draw their attention to vocabulary of contrast.

Listen to T’s summary and pay attention to the words shown on the screen

T-Ss Word list (contrast words students need to get familiar with and use after this lesson) shown on

screen (No.3), Computer, Screen

Language Focus: 24 min Activity 7 Consciousness-raising

6 min Ask Ss to go through the text, underlining all the expressions used to describe the town (in the past and at present) in group. Tell Ss to notice the differences of nouns, verbs and adjectives used when describing the town during different period of time. Go through and hear their contributions.

Go through the text again, discuss and underline expressions in group. Pay more attention to the nouns, verbs and adjectives.

Individual, Ss-Ss T-Ss (sometimes)

The text “A fable for tomorrow” (No.2)

Activity 8 Vanishing words

18 min

Ask Ss to put away the text Step 1: Take a sentence containing key words in this lesson of the “past town”, show it by ppt. to the class and ask Ss in group C & D to read it out. Step 2: Show the class a second slide with 2 or 3 key words removed from the sentence and

Ss in group C & D read the sentence shown on the screen out. Try to remember the missing words either by consulting oneself or group members and speak them out. Ss in group A & B read and

T-Ss Ss-Ss in group or individual

PPT. showing the selected sentences and sentences with words missing (No.4)

see whether the Ss in group C & D can remember it or not. Step 3: Show the class a third slide with 4 or 5 key words removed from the sentence and see whether the Ss in group C & D can remember it or not. Step 4: Take another sentence describing the present town and do the same things as mentioned above. Repeat Steps 1-4 for another two round.

try to remember the missing words when it comes to their turn. Ss in group C & D and group A & B take turns to read and fill the vanishing words.

Follow Up: 5 min Conclusion 3 min Guide the Ss to review the words

learnt by referring to the Word List or emphasize to them the words they can’t remember clearly in the Vanishing Words activity. Ask the Ss a question: Have you witnessed anything mentioned in the text happen in your hometown? Give them 30 seconds to think

Review the words learnt together with the T and the other Ss. Take notes if they want. Briefly think about the question by oneself.

T-Ss individual

The Word List (No.3)

about it. Activity 9 Writing (homework)

2 min Ask the Ss to choose one topic to write a 600-word assignment and send it to the T’s e-mail in 5 days. The topics are: 1. What do you think your

hometown, the town in the text or the earth will be like in the future? Why?

2. What do you think has caused the changes in your hometown or in the text? Why?

Take notes of the topics or requirement of the homework.

T-Ss A slide of topics for homework (No.5)

Teaching Materials No.1: Pictures of T’s hometown:

No.1

No.2: The text “A fable for tomorrow” (one chapter in Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring”)

No.2

No.3: Word List

No.3

The past town harmony prosperous bloom blaze flicker delight abundance variety clear

The present town blight creep (crept) sweep (swept) strike (stricken) deserted moribund tremble throb wither(ed)

No.4: Sentences for Vanishing Words The town lay in the midst of a checkerboard of prosperous farms where, in spring, white clouds of bloom drifted above the green fields. The town lay in the midst of a checkerboard of ______ farms where, in spring, white _____ of bloom _____ above the green fields. The town lay in the midst of a checkerboard of_____ _____ where, in spring, white _____ _____ _____ _____ the green fields. Then a strange blight crept over the area. Some evil spell had settled on the community: mysterious maladies swept the flocks of chickens. Then a strange blight ____ over the area. Some evil spell had ____ on the community: mysterious maladies ____ the flocks of chickens. Then a strange ____ ____ ____ the area. Some evil spell had ____ ____ the community: mysterious maladies ____ the ____ of chickens. In autumn, oak and maple and birch set up a blaze of color that flamed and flickered across a backdrop of pines. In autumn, oak and maple and birch set up a ____ of color that flamed and ____ across a backdrop of pines. In autumn, oak and maple and birch ____ ____ a ____ of color that ____ and ____ across a ____ of pines. Many people spoke of them, puzzled and disturbed. The few birds seen anywhere were moribund; they trembled violently and could not fly. Many people spoke of them, puzzled and ____. The few birds seen anywhere were ____; they trembled ____ and could not fly. Many people spoke of them, ____ and ____. The few birds seen anywhere were ____; they ____ ____ and could not fly. The countryside was famous for the abundance and variety of its bird life, and when the flood of migrants was pouring through in spring and fall people traveled to observe them. The countryside was famous for the ____ and variety of its bird life, and when the flood of ____ was ____ through in spring and fall people traveled to observe them. The countryside was famous for the ____ and ____ of its bird life, and when the ____ of ____ was ____ ____ in spring and fall people to observe them.

The roadsides were now lined with browned and withered vegetation as though swept by fire. These, too, were silent, deserted by all living things. The roadsides were now lined with browned and ____ vegetation as though ____ by fire. These, too, were silent, ____ by all living things. The roadsides were now ____ ____ browned and ____ vegetation as though ____ by fire. These, too, were silent, ____ ____ all living things. No.4

No.5: Topics for homework (assignment)

No.5

Topics: 1. What do you think your hometown, the town in the text or the earth will be like in the future? Why? 2. What do you think has caused the changes in your hometown or in the text? and why?