Preparing EFL Students for Communicative Task Performance: The Nature and Role of Language Knowledge

doi:10.65961/AJELT-2009-1-004

PDF(115 KB)

Asian Journal of English Language Teaching ›› 2009, Vol. 19 ›› Issue (1) : 67-90. DOI: 10.65961/AJELT-2009-1-004

Articles

Preparing EFL Students for Communicative Task Performance: The Nature and Role of Language Knowledge

Jasmine Luk

Author information +

History +

Abstract

This paper examines how a secondary school English teacher in Hong Kong prepared her students for a communicative task. Of particular concern are the nature and the role of language knowledge (LK) in the pre-task stage. The data came from the initial phase of a wider project that investigated whether and how English teachers in Hong Kong integrate a focus on LK with meaningful communication in a task-based teaching context. A qualitative analysis of the classroom teaching and interview data reveals that the teacher concerned was not always able to address students' language needs for the subsequent communicative task performance. Such a phenomenon seems to be the result of the teacher's predominantly code-based view of LK. With a tendency to equate LK with acquisition of lexical meanings, pronunciation and grammar rules, the teacher failed to equip students with appropriate language resources to deal with tasks that require discourse and genre awareness in the pre-task stage. The results of the analysis point to the need for teachers to revisit their perceptions of what LK should constitute in terms of its scope and nature, relevance to the communicative tasks, as well as transferability from one task to another in different language use contexts. A framework with guiding principles is proposed to assist teachers to identify key components of LK for communicative task performance.

Cite this article

EndNote

Ris (Procite)

Bibtex

Download Citations

Jasmine Luk. (2009). Preparing EFL Students for Communicative Task Performance: The Nature and Role of Language Knowledge.Asian Journal of English Language Teaching , 19(1): 67-90. https://doi.org/10.65961/AJELT-2009-1-004

References

Andrews, S. (2007). Teacher language awareness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Borg, S. (1998). Talking about grammar in the foreign language classroom.Language Awareness, 7(4), 159-175.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to language teaching and testing.Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.
Carless, D. (2004). Issues in teachers' re-interpretation of a task-based innovation in primary schools.TESOL Quarterly, 38, 639-662.
Carless, D. (2007). The suitability of task-based approaches for secondary schools: Perspectives from Hong Kong.System, 35, 595-608.
Celce-Murcia M., Dörnyei Z., & Thurrell S. (1997). Direct approaches in L2 instruction: A turning point in communicative language teaching? TESOL Quarterly, 31, 141-152.
Chalhoub-Deville, M. (2003). Second language interaction: Current perspectives and future trends.Language Testing, 20(4), 369-383.
Curriculum Development Institute (1997). Syllabus for English language (Primary 1 to 6). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Education Department.
Curriculum Development Institute (2007). English Language Curriculum & Assessment Guide (Secondary 4-6). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Education Bureau.
Doughty C.,& Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy.Language Teaching Research, 4(3),193-220.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fotos, S. (2002). Structure-based interactive tasks for the EFL grammar learner. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives in grammar teaching in second language classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate methodology and social context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Howatt, A. (1984). A history of English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride and J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Kramsch, C. (2006). From communicative competence to symbolic competence.The Modern Language Journal, 90, 249-252.
Li, D. (1998). “It's always more difficult than you plan and imagine”: Teachers' perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea.TESOL Quarterly, 32(4), 677-703.
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: Effects in second language learning.Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429-448.
Littlewood, W. (2004). The task-based approach: Some questions and suggestions.English Language Teaching Journal, 58(4), 319-326.
Nassaji, H. (1999). Towards integrating form-focused instruction and communicative interaction in the second language classroom: Some pedagogical possibilities.The Canadian Modern Language Review, 55(3), 385-402.
Nunan, D. (1998). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Madrid: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. (2003). The impact of English as a global language on educational policies and practices in the Asia-Pacific region.TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 589-613.
Samuda, V. (2001). Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: The role of the teacher. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 119-140). London: Pearson Education.
Savignon, S. J. (2005). Communicative language teaching: Strategies and goals. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 635-651). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction.Applied Linguistics, 17, 38-62.
Stern H. H.(1992). Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thompson, G. (1996). Some misconceptions about communicative language teaching.English Language Teaching Journal, 50(1), 9-15.
VanPatten B., Williams J., & Rott S. (2004). Form-meaning connections in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten, J. Williams, S. Rott & M. Overstreet (Eds.), Form-meaning connections in second language acquisition(pp. 1-26). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Widdowson, H. G. (1989). Knowledge of language and ability for use.Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 128-137.
Widdowson, H. G. (2007). Un-applied linguistics and communicative language teaching: A reaction to Keith Johnson's review of Notional Syllabuses.International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17(2), 214-220.
Wilkins, D. (1976). Notional syllabuses: A taxonomy and its relevance to foreign language curriculum development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, J. (2005). Form-focused instruction. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Willis D.,& Willis, J. (2001). Task-based language learning. In C. Ronald & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp. 173-179). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Willis D.,& Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow, England: Pearson Education.