English Language and Applied Linguistics

Postgraduate Distance Learning programmes

ESSAY & DISSERTATION COVER SHEET

IMPORTANT: Please complete ALL sections of this template and PASTE it into the FIRST
page of your PDF essay or dissertation submission

Student ID number
1961244
Module Number (1-6) 1
Title of Degree Programme: MA TESOL
Title of Module: Language Teaching Methodology, Classroom
Research and Research Methods
Date Submitted
30th November 2018
Name of tutor
Bob Ashcroft

Important Declaration: Please read this carefully before submitting:

1) In submitting this essay/dissertation, you are declaring that it complies with the School
specifications for the formatting of assessed work (which includes the ‘specified maximum
word limit’);

2) In submitting this essay/dissertation, you are declaring that it is your own work and that it
complies with the University of Birmingham rules on plagiarism; no part of it is copied from
the published or unpublished work of anyone else expect where such quotations are
properly cited and acknowledged;

3) If you believe that your performance may have been affected by illness or similar matter,
your submission declares that you have followed the guidance on extenuating
circumstances and extensions. Please indicate if you have submitted evidence relating to
extenuating circumstances* in connection with this piece of work, by ticking this box:

S
* Please contact the School Welfare Officers for guidance regarding an application for
extenuating circumstances – edacswelfare@contacts.bham.ac.uk

Essay & Dissertation cover sheet (17-18) v2

 Adopting TBLT in a Japanese Junior High School EFL
Context

Matthew French

Assignment submitted for

MA TESOL
November 2018
Module 1 Assessment Task
Language Teaching and Methodology

LT/18/11
...although PPP lessons are often supplemented with skills lessons, most students taught mainly
through conventional approaches such as PPP leave school unable to communicate effectively
in English (Stern, 1983). This situation has prompted many ELT professionals to take note of...
second language acquisition (SLA) studies... and turn towards holistic approaches where
meaning is central and where opportunities for language use abound. Task-based learning is
one such approach...

(Willis, 2005: 4–5)[1]

Do you think that Task-Based Language Teaching, if adopted in your own teaching context,

would result in more students being able “to communicate effectively in English”? Why (not)?

What would be the advantages and/or problems of implementing a task-based approach in your

own teaching situation?

[1] Willis, J. (2005) ‘Introduction: Aims and explorations into tasks and task-based teaching’, in Edwards, C.

& J. Willis (eds.) Teachers Exploring Tasks in English Language Teaching. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
 Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................................. 3

2. Task-based language teaching ................................................................... 4

2.1 Characteristics of TBLT ............................................................................................ 4

2.2 Defining tasks ............................................................................................................ 6
2.3 Benefits of TBLT ....................................................................................................... 7
2.4 Criticisms and limitations of TBLT ........................................................................... 8

3. TBLT in the Japanese junior high school EFL context......................... 10

3.1 English language government policy and English as a subject ............................... 10

3.2 My teaching context ................................................................................................. 10
3.3 Advantages of implementing TBLT ........................................................................ 11
3.3.1 Focus on communication and meaning............................................................ 11

3.3.2 Increased engagement ...................................................................................... 12

3.3.3 Motivation ........................................................................................................ 13

3.4 Obstacles to implementing TBLT ............................................................................ 14

3.4.1 Eastern versus Western teaching context ......................................................... 14

3.4.2 Class sizes and ability level ............................................................................. 14

3.4.3 Emphasis on testing ......................................................................................... 15

4. Conclusion ................................................................................................. 16

5. References .................................................................................................. 18

6. Appendices ................................................................................................. 22

6.1 Appendix 1 ............................................................................................................... 22

6.2 Appendix 2 ............................................................................................................... 23

Adopting TBLT in a Japanese Junior High School EFL Context 2

1. Introduction
The great majority of Japanese learners leave school as remedial beginners, without a usable
competence in English. Since the current approaches have been shown not to work it is
necessary to try some sort of innovation.

(Willis & Wills, 2009: 6)

For over fifteen years the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and

Technology (MEXT) has embraced the goal of developing student communication abilities and

fostering a positive attitude towards communication through foreign languages (MEXT,

2011b). However, after six years of formal language education, this does not appear to have

led to any commensurate increase in the communication levels of Japanese graduates, resulting

in a vast number of false-beginners who self-identify as being poor at English (Rakuten

Research, 2016; ETS, 2017; Education First, 2018). Task-based language teaching (TBLT)

would appear to address many of the perceived failings of the current system of yakudoku used

in public schools, which focuses heavily on form and grammar, and is characterised by both

the grammar translation and present-practice-produce (PPP) approaches. While there has been

some consideration of the unique challenges posed regarding TBLT and EFL in the public

schooling context (Asquith, 2015; Sato & Takahashi (2008); Rapley, 2010; Sato, 2010),

considerably more has been written about the university or adult learning levels (Beglar &

Hunt, 2002; Muller, 2005; Kikuchi & Sakai, 2009; Kozawa, 2010; Anthony, 2012).

While TBLT might prove beneficial to allowing students to communicate more effectively,

form-focused methods are deeply entrenched in Japan, a country with little apparent need for

communicating in a foreign language and a very strong focus on grammar-based entrance

examinations. Despite a significant move to embrace TBLT worldwide, questions have been

raised regarding both the lack of empirical evidence of its efficacy (Sheen, 1994; Bruton, 2005;

Swan, 2005) and its applicability to non-Western contexts (Burrows, 2008b; Sato, 2010).

Proponents of TBLT argue that such objections are based on fundamental misconceptions of

Adopting TBLT in a Japanese Junior High School EFL Context 3

the approach (Ellis, 2009) and that approaches such as PPP have thus far failed to produce

learners who can communicate meaningfully (Willis & Willis, 2009).

This paper will argue that the adoption of TBLT in my context would result in students being

able to communicate both more effectively and with greater confidence. I will begin by

providing the background to TBLT and review the literature. I will then consider TBLT in my

teaching context, noting the advantages and obstacles to implementing a more communicative

pedagogical approach while discuss implications and potential opportunities for adopting

TBLT.

2. Task-based language teaching

2.1 Characteristics of TBLT
TBLT is an approach to language teaching that uses tasks as the central tool for planning and

instruction (Richards & Rogers, 2001) and arose from the communicative teaching approach

(CLT). TBLT represents a strong form of CLT, with the focus on meaning over form and

accuracy as a defining characteristic (Ellis, 2003). CLT, and subsequently TBLT, have gained

a following in response to perceived failings of traditional form-based approaches used in

synthetic syllabuses, which contend that language should be introduced in a formal system, in

a step by step fashion (Willis & Willis, 2009). It is important at the outset to clarify there is no

one all-encompassing definition or suggested implementation of TBLT (Ellis, 2009). There is

also distinction to make between a task-based curriculum and a task-supported curriculum. In

a task-based curriculum, ‘tasks are the central unit of instruction; they “drive” classroom

activity’ (Samuda & Bygate, 2008: 58), and as such, this style is often referred to as strong

TBLT. In a task-supported curriculum, tasks are used in conjunction with, or to supplement

more traditional structured curriculums, and is conversely referred to as weak TBLT (Skehan,

2003; Ellis, 2003; Ellis, 2014).

Adopting TBLT in a Japanese Junior High School EFL Context 4

While numerous views of what constitutes a TBLT approach have been put forward, they

invariably share several common characteristics, namely:

• placing a high priority on meaning and communicating, as opposed to form (although

current TBLT practice recognises the importance of form);

• focusing on meaningful communication to achieve a distinct goal as the outcome, as

opposed to learning language or grammar for their own sake;

• utilising tasks, and subsequently language, which will be authentic;

• being learner-centred, with teachers taking more of a facilitator role; and

• students using previously acquired language to complete the tasks.

Similarly, various frameworks for designing task-based lessons have been proposed, with most

encompassing three stages or cycles, as exemplified by Willis’ framework (1996: 38):

Table 1: Components of the TBL framework (Willis, 1996)

Pre-task Introduction to topic and task

Teacher explores the topic with class

Task Cycle Task students do the task

Planning students prepare to report to the
whole class
Report some groups present their
reports

Language Focus Analysis students examine and discuss

Practice teacher conducts practice of new
words, phrases and patterns

Willis’ framework outlines three stages, including an initial “pre-task” stage where topics are

framed without setting a specific language agenda. Next, learners have the actual task stage,

Adopting TBLT in a Japanese Junior High School EFL Context 5

where they work to plan, complete and report on the task. Finally, emergent language points

are discussed for further analysis and review.

2.2 Defining tasks

Initial definitions of what would constitute a task were broad, comprising everyday activities

that people might undertake, for example, ‘ordering a pizza’ or ‘picking up the dry cleaning’

(Long, 1985). This idea was further clarified by proponents with reference to the importance

of meaning, relationship to the real world and some sort of task completion with a non-

linguistic outcome (Skehan, 1996; Willis, 1996; Samuda & Bygate, 2008). Others have

provided further refinement or clarification, such as Nunan, who explicitly acknowledges the

relevance of language learners ‘mobilizing their grammatical knowledge’ (Nunan, 2004: 4).

For the purpose of this paper, Ellis (2009: 223) provides a definition which encompasses the

main criteria agreed upon by many proponents of TBLT, being:

1. The primary focus should be on ‘meaning’ (by which is meant that learners should be mainly
concerned with processing the semantic and pragmatic meaning of utterances).

2. There should be some kind of ‘gap’ (i.e. a need to convey information, to express an opinion
or to infer meaning).

3. Learners should largely have to rely on their own resources (linguistic and non-linguistic) in
order to complete the activity.

4. There is a clearly defined outcome other than the use of language (i.e. the language serves as
the means for achieving the outcome, not as an end in its own right).

(Ellis, 2009: 223)

Tasks can also be ‘real-world’ or ‘pedagogic’, with real-world tasks aiming to replicate

authentic tasks that learners might actually encounter in real life, such as the previously

mentioned ‘ordering a pizza’, or pedagogic in that they aim at interactional authenticity, such

as a ‘spot-the-difference’ task (Ellis, 2014). In contrast to a task, a linguistic activity or

grammar exercise which focuses on form and designed to introduce or review a particular

Adopting TBLT in a Japanese Junior High School EFL Context 6

language point would almost always fail to achieve criteria (4) and potentially not meet the

remaining criteria.

2.3 Benefits of TBLT

A defining characteristic and benefit of TBLT is the focus on meaning over form (Skehan,

1996; Nunan, 1989; Ellis, 2003) and it is implied ‘that tasks involve communicative language

use in which the user’s attention is focused on meaning rather than linguistic structures’

(Nunan, 1989: 10). This focus on meaning first is characterised by four criteria, (1) the teacher

does not set a language agenda, (2) success is based on communicating successfully, (3) at

some stage there will be a focus on language, with teachers helping to clarify what learners are

wanting to convey, and (4) the focus on form comes after the focus on meaning (Willis &

Willis, 2007). The main benefit of this focus on meaning is that it frees students to try and

communicate immediately, without needing to be told how they should be communicating. If

the goal of language teaching is to enable learners to communicate effectively, then their fear

of making mistakes or not be accurate must be overcome.

Another benefit of TBLT is the engagement that arises from using authentic language for real

outcomes, allowing students the opportunity to produce meanings in the real world which are

relevant to them (Prabhu, 1987; Willis, 1996). Similarly, while critics of TBLT argue that it is

not suitable to input-poor environments (Swan, 2005), exemplified in linguistically

homogenous countries like Japan, advocates contend that it is just such environments which

would benefit most from TBLT (Ellis, 2014). Given the lack of authentic interactions outside

the classroom, authentic real-world or relevant pedagogic tasks take on an even greater

importance (Richards & Rogers, 2001; Ellis 2014). Because tasks aim for authenticity, learners

are given opportunities they might not otherwise be afforded to use language and forms which

are utilised in everyday life and for tasks that might actually occur (Willis & Willis, 1996).

Adopting TBLT in a Japanese Junior High School EFL Context 7

This increased engagement also feeds into motivation, a significant factor in language learning,

particularly for teenagers in contexts where the L2 is foreign language subject (Kikuchi &

Sakai, 2016). Because tasks have explicit goals, it is the challenge of trying to achieve that goal

which makes them intrinsically motivating (Willis, 1996). While students may not be

motivated to ‘learn English’, many have the immediate motivation to complete the task at hand.

These motivational aspects of tasks can also be adapted and directed, using unfocused tasks

(designed to provide opportunities for communicative language use in general) or focused tasks

(designed with a view to using a specific linguistic feature) and can be input-providing

(listening, reading) or output-prompting (speaking, writing) (Ellis, 2009: 24). This flexibility

can cater to a wide variety of learner skill levels and styles and types of classroom tasks, and

tasks can be utilised alongside syllabus appointed textbooks in synthetic curriculums (Muller,

2005, Ellis, 2014).

2.4 Criticisms and limitations of TBLT

While there has been a move to embrace TBLT, opponents point to a lack of empirical evidence

to support claims to its efficacy (Sheen, 1994; Seedhouse, 1999; Swan, 2005) and even its

staunchest advocates have admitted there is a lack of empirical evidence proving its

effectiveness (Ellis, 2003; Tomlinson, 2015). Although there has been some interesting

research, into the impact of PPP and TBLT (Shintani 2015), there also clearly needs to be more

longitudinal research conducted to support the positions of TBLT advocates (Sheen, 1994).

A common argument against TBLT is that it does not focus enough on form and grammar and

downplays the importance of accuracy (Sheen, 1994; Swan, 2005). However, this has been

rejected by Ellis (2009) and Willis & Willis (2009) among others who counter that a focus on

form, particularly in the language focus stage is an important step, as can be seen in TBLT

class design frameworks outlined by Ellis (2003) and Willis (1996). Further, Willis & Willis

Adopting TBLT in a Japanese Junior High School EFL Context 8

contend that an initial focus on grammar and accuracy is not conducive to long term acquisition

or output (Willis & Willis, 2007). Willis (1996) adopts a more pragmatic approach, noting that

while grammar is not central to a TBLT approach, it still has a place and the use of focused

tasks allow for the highlighting of grammar.

Critics of TBLT have contended that if achieving a given task is the ultimate goal, students

will use the easiest method to achieve the task, often with the minimum amount of L2 language

use (Seedhouse, 1999). It is also natural that students will find tasks more engaging than rote

learning, however the task itself should not be elevated above the goal of acquiring and using

language. If students achieve the task, but do so with little to no advancement in their

communicative ability, there is little advantage over using a structured methodology such as

PPP (Eguchi & Eguchi, 2006). However, this can be mitigated by selecting tasks which are

appropriate and engaging, ensuring students know what is expected of them and providing

clear and meaningful outcomes.

Finally, it has been argued that TBLT is not compatible with educational systems focused on

knowledge-learning as opposed to skill-development and with a focus on examinations, such

as Japan. In such systems, students have generally not been exposed to learner-centred

approaches and expectations of higher levels of class involvement (Burrows, 2008a, 2008b;

Sato, 2010). However, in a study which surveyed students in eight East Asian and three

European countries, Littlewood (2001) found the majority of students in all countries would

like to see themselves as active participants in classroom learning, with Asian students wanting

to engage more. Most students also had a positive attitude towards group work to achieve goals,

concluding that ‘the differences in the means of “whole countries” and “whole cultures” are

considerably less than the range of variation between individuals within each country or

Adopting TBLT in a Japanese Junior High School EFL Context 9

culture’ (Littlewood, 2001: 22). Japanese students may well be capable of adjusting to TBLT

approach, but they must be taught how to adjust (Burrows, 2008b).

3. TBLT in the Japanese junior high school EFL context

3.1 English language government policy and English as a subject
MEXT has stated that improving student communication abilities, not just for English, but for

all subjects, is a major policy focus (MEXT, 2011a). That is, students should be encouraged

and taught independent decision-making and problem-solving, explanation, critique and

debate. To support this policy goal, over 18,000 native speaking Assistant Language Teachers

(ALTs) are used in many public schools (McCrostie, 2017). While MEXT has stated that

English communication should be prioritised, it should be noted that even within the MEXT

guidelines there is a tension between wanting to increase communication abilities while noting

that ‘grammar underpins communication’ (MEXT 2011b: 6) and that grammar elements

‘should be taught in a stepwise fashion from easy to difficult, according to the learning stage’

(MEXT 2011b: 7). This would seemingly be at odds with one of the main tenets of strong

TBLT; not pre-determining a language agenda (Willis & Willis, 2007).

3.2 My teaching context

I teach as an ALT working in three public junior high schools in Hiroshima, Japan. My role in

class varies from being used primarily to provide pronunciation examples and clarification on

grammar points to preparing full classes. Usually I am requested to develop short activities to

complement the grammar point being taught that day by the Japanese Teacher of English (JTE).

Class sizes range from 15-40 students aged 12-16 years old, with an average class size of

approximately 33 students and a gender ratio of approximately 55% girls to 45% boys. Classes

are 50 minutes in length and students attend four English language lessons per week.

Classrooms rarely have access to any form of Information and Communications Technology

Adopting TBLT in a Japanese Junior High School EFL Context 10

(ICT) and while schools have computer laboratories, neither I or the JTEs have used them for

English classes. Classes are taught by the JTE using the yakudoku method, which is

characterised by word-by-word translation (Nishino, 2008) and the PPP model; a grammar

point is introduced, relevant vocabulary is drilled, students perform controlled practice and

then engage in a grammar activity that closely follows the form of the grammar point

introduced at the start of the lesson.

3.3 Advantages of implementing TBLT

3.3.1 Focus on communication and meaning
The central benefit of using a TBLT approach in my classes would be the increased focus on

communication and meaning (Willis & Willis, 2009). This focus on meaning would also assist

in reassuring students that, while grammar, spelling and pronunciation are important, they

should not be an impediment to them attempting to convey what they mean. Although attention

may be paid to form during the language focus stage of the task (Willis, 1996), at first students

are free to simply communicate with whatever language they have already attained.

For example, at the beginning of a recent third grade lesson, several students gave humorous

descriptions of a textbook interaction between characters at the bakery. The student

descriptions, while not grammatically correct, were very funny (‘She do karate to him’), and

seeing that it was okay to be silly and make mistakes, other students were emboldened to

describe the situation in similar ‘non-textbook’ fashion. This led to the creation of a writing

task for the next lesson, where the goal was to develop a dialogue for a four-panel comic

inspired by student’s previous suggestions. In the pre-task stage, students discussed potential

scenarios and language to be employed. During the task cycle students wrote their dialogues

(Appendix 1), the dialogues were discussed and refined in pairs and with teacher assistance.

Finally, the finished version of their comic was presented to class (Appendix 2). In the language

Adopting TBLT in a Japanese Junior High School EFL Context 11

focus stage, we examined some example work for particular interesting language or grammar

usage, with many of the students producing dialogues that were clearly well above the

complexity of their usual grammar activity style submissions, as per Appendix 1 and 2. This

task encompassed Ellis’ four criteria, (1) the primary focus was on meaning, being the student’s

wanting to convey their joke, (2) the students conveyed their own original stories, (3) the

students used their vocabulary and previously acquired grammar knowledge to draft their initial

storyboards, which were refined with teacher’s help, and (4) the defined outcome was to create

a self-contained four panel comic, not to produce a particular language form.

3.3.2 Increased engagement

In an effort to assess the effectiveness of a task-supported activity on class engagement, I

recently ran an interview activity which was a simplified version of Beglar & Hunt’s survey

project (2002), where small groups choose their own topics and created and administered a

questionnaire. While the grammar focus was specified beforehand by the JTE (‘Which do you

want? A or B?’), this was not initially made known to the class. First, we did a short pre-task

activity where students were asked which fast food chain they liked and four options were

given. This started a lively discussion after which the task and outcome were outline; students

would create their own class survey on likes and dislikes. During the task cycle stage groups

discussed and volunteered potential topics which were recorded on the board for reference.

Students developed categories for their chosen question topics in secret and further discussion

revealed the types of question that would be appropriate for their chosen topic. Finally, students

prepared their own survey content, asking for help or clarification as needed. After conducting

their survey, students were able to prepare and present a very short report on their findings to

the rest of the class. During the language focus stage the class discussed other ways they might

be able to use the target language. From the outset, students were more engaged and there was

significant discussion about the task and categories to be chosen. There was also substantially

Adopting TBLT in a Japanese Junior High School EFL Context 12

more variety in topics suggested by students than my original version of the activity and there

was more interaction with myself and the JTE than previous classes in terms of students asking

for feedback on spelling and grammar.

Much like Muller’s example of adapting prescribed texts for a TBLT style lesson (Muller,

2005), the above task shows that using elements of TBLT that can be realistically implemented

in a synthetic syllabus can be a starting point to increase student’s engagement,

communication, output and confidence. While criteria (1) and (4) of Ellis’ definition were only

partly satisfied, potentially pushing the task towards being a grammar activity (there was a pre-

determined grammar point), (1) there was primary focus on meaning, (2) students sought out

unknown information, namely the opinions of their classmates, (3) while there was a set

language point, students relied on previously learned grammar structures and vocabulary to

devise a variety of original questions, and (4) there was also a clearly defined outcome other

than the use of the language; discovering what was popular in each class. By using more task-

supported activities like this, students can become more accustomed to the kind of autonomy

associated with ‘learner driven’ TBLT (Burrows, 2008b) and gain confidence in attempting

future tasks. It shows that students are capable of embracing this style of learning, although it

would be worthwhile to explain the potential benefits of the TBLT approach in addition to

equipping them with learner strategies to help them adapt (Anthony, 2012; Burrows, 2008a;

Moser 2005).

3.3.3 Motivation
Student motivation to study English in a country when English is not needed for

communication or usage in daily life is an ongoing hurdle in the Japanese classroom.

Motivation regarding English often wanes after the first year of JHS as the novelty of studying

English wears off and the reality of the difficulty of learning a foreign language becomes

Adopting TBLT in a Japanese Junior High School EFL Context 13

apparent to many students (Kikuchi & Sakai, 2016; Matsuno, 2018). However, while students

might not be interested in learning English per se, solving a task can provide immediate

motivation and textbook activities can be adapted and re-purposed with a more communicative

focus, for example developing a multi-week group project topic which still covers the required

syllabus grammar. (Asquith, 2015). Ongoing communication assessment could also provide

external motivation and confirmation of progression. Further investigation into developing

tasks that utilise ICT, computer-mediated communication (CMC), e-learning or web-based

materials in addition to textbooks, could also more opportunities for students to improve their

communicative abilities (Butler, 2011; Thomas, 2015; Shimada, 2017).

3.4 Obstacles to implementing TBLT

3.4.1 Eastern versus Western teaching context
One of the main obstacles to adopting TBLT in the Japanese classroom is sociocultural: the

conflict between a Western style teaching method and a Confucian-heritage context

(Littlewood, 2007), where the traditional culture of learning is one of knowledge acquisition.

Traditional Japanese classes are teacher-centric, with the teaching imparting knowledge to

obediently attentive students with little to no feedback given or expected (Hu, 2005). This lack

of interactional engagement from students is a very real, deep ingrained behaviour in the

Japanese school system and cannot be ignored. That is not to say that students are not capable

of adapting to a communicative TBLT environment, with it perhaps even being preferable

(Littlewood, 2001), however students may effectively need to be taught how to learn in this

approach and support is imperative (Burrows, 2008a).

3.4.2 Class sizes and ability level

Large class sizes are a challenge for any teaching approach and proponents concede that TBLT

is not easily implemented in large classes (Ellis, 2009). Large classes, particularly those

approaching forty students, are characterised by delays in terms of organising groups and group

Adopting TBLT in a Japanese Junior High School EFL Context 14

work can be difficult or time consuming to organise (Hedge, 2000), although it should be noted

that a TBLT approach does not require group work, particularly for input based tasks (Ellis,

2014). Another potential solution implemented at my large high schools is to divide first grade

classes in half, allowing more interaction between myself, the JTE and students. This has had

positive results with students engaging more with each other and teachers during class tasks

and activities, however this is admittedly not practical for all grades, given the need for extra

staff.

Critics of TBLT argue that students cannot build upon language they have acquired, if they

have yet to acquire it (Swan, 2005). Advocates of TBLT note that students can use already

attained language to build on and created new communication and low-level learners can

clearly communicate even with a minimal command of grammar. (Hedge, 2000; Willis &

Willis, 2007; Ellis, 2009). However, TBLT is not limited to ‘output-prompting’ tasks, with

lower level and beginner students likely benefiting more from listening and input-providing

tasks at first, as opposed to production tasks (Ellis, 2009; Ellis, 2014). For first grade students,

despite their low ability level, there does not need to be a focus on oral tasks. Written tasks,

such as learning journals (Moser, 2005), can be valuable tools. For example, I use diaries with

first grade students; students write weekly entries or ask questions and submit their diary for

my corrections, prompts and responses. This has seen a marked improvement in students

writing ability and has also increased communication between myself and the students, with

students attempting longer and more complex entries and conversations, both in and out of

class.

3.4.3 Emphasis on testing

Senior high school entrance examination tests are a significant motivator for Japanese junior

high school students, with results potentially impacting the rest of their lives. Consequently,

Adopting TBLT in a Japanese Junior High School EFL Context 15

tests are an important motivation in Japan in the immediate sense, with ‘using English in some

capacity in the future’ as some vaguely defined motivator held by many students (Rapley,

2010; Yashima, Senuk-Nishide, Shimizu, 2004). Assessment could be formulated with more

focus on whether students can use the grammar as opposed to just knowing the grammar (Willis

& Willis, 2009), however teachers looking to implement TBLT into the syllabus must still

ensure they fulfil assessment requirements While challenging, implement assessment

frameworks for a TBLT syllabus is not impossible, utilising tools such as clearly defined

rubrics that outline the marking criteria in both English and Japanese. These marking criteria

should be discussed with head teachers and external stakeholders to reassure parties that

learning goals are being met (Asquith, 2015).

4. Conclusion
This paper has looked at a number of advantages and obstacles associated with adopting a

TBLT approach in my Japanese junior high school context. While valid concerns have been

raised not just about the efficacy of TBLT in general, but about its specific application in the

Japanese context, evidence from the published literature and my own initial implementation of

task-based and task-supported activities has yielded very positive results. Despite the potential

conflict between TBLT and the educational values and traditions of Japan, grammar-translation

and PPP methods have clearly not worked. The evidence to date shows that TBLT could help

achieve the government’s educational policy to improve student communication skills. That is

not to say that there are not significant obstacles to implementing TBLT in junior high school

classes, however there is certainly opportunity to begin employing elements of task-supported

TBLT and tasks as part of a syllabus that includes traditional PPP methods. This is a pragmatic

reflection of the constraints under which ALTs teach and given the number of ALTs being

utilised in Japan at the junior high school level, this is an area where more research would assist

in providing a fuller picture of the opportunities to practically implement more communicative

Adopting TBLT in a Japanese Junior High School EFL Context 16

teaching methods. The aim of TBLT is to provide intrinsically motivating tasks which provide

interesting authentic input with a goal of allowing opportunities for meaningful language

production and effective communication. Given that most Japanese students graduate without

being able to communicate meaningfully in English, any approach that aims to increase student

communicative effectiveness should be seriously considered.

Adopting TBLT in a Japanese Junior High School EFL Context 17

 5. References
Anthony, G. C. (2012) Task-based language teaching in a low proficiency Japanese university
-

context. 八戸大学紀要 第 45 号 (Bulletin of Hachinohe University, No. 45), pp. 41-50.

Asquith, S. M. (2015) Integrating a functional approach with Japanese junior high school
teaching practices. In P. Clements, A. Krause, & H. Brown (eds.), JALT2014 Conference
Proceedings. Tokyo: JALT.

Beglar, D. and Hunt, A. (2002) Implementing task-based language teaching. In Richards, J. C.

and Renandya, W. A. (eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of
current practice, approaches and methods in language teaching, chapter 9, Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press, pp. 96–106.

Bruton, A. (2005) Task-based language teaching: For the state secondary FL classroom? The
Language Learning Journal, 31(1), pp. 55-68.

Burrows, C. (2008a) Socio-cultural barriers facing TBL in Japan. The Language Teacher,
32(8), pp. 15-19.

Burrows, C. (2008b) An evaluation of task-based learning (TBL) in the Japanese classroom.

English Today, 24(4), 11-16.

Butler, Y. G. (2011) The implementation of communicative and task-based language teaching

in the Asia-Pacific region. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, Cambridge University
Press, 31, pp. 36-57.

Carless, D. (2002) Implementing task-based learning with young learners, ELT Journal, 56(4),
1 October 2002, pp. 389-396.

Education First. (2018) EF English Proficiency Index 2018 [online]. Accessed from:
https://www.efjapan.co.jp/__/~/media/centralefcom/epi/downloads/full-reports/v8/ef-epi-
2018-japanese.pdf [Accessed 28 November 2018].

Eguchi, M. and Eguchi, K. (2006) The limited effect of PBL on EFL Learners: A case study
of English magazine projects. Asian EFLT Journal, 8(3), pp. 207-225.

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

Ellis, R. (2009) Task-based language teaching: sorting out the misunderstandings.

International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), pp. 221-246.

Ellis, R. (2014) Taking the critics to task: The case for task based teaching. National
University of Singapore [online]. Accessed from:
https://www.fas.nus.edu.sg/cls/CLaSIC/clasic2014/Proceedings/ellis_rod.pdf [Accessed
5 November 2018].

ETS (Educational Testing Service). (2017) 2017 Report on test takers worldwide [online].
Accessed from: https://www.ets.org/ [Accessed 28 November 2018].

Adopting TBLT in a Japanese Junior High School EFL Context 18

Hedge, T. (2000) Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford University Press,
UK, 2000.

Hu, G. (2005), Contextual influences on instructional practices: A Chinese case for an

ecological approach to ELT. TESOL Quarterly, 39, pp. 635-660.

Kikuchi, K., & Sakai H (2009) Japanese learners’ demotivation to study English: A survey
study. JALT Journal, 31(2), November 2009, pp. 183-204.

Kikuchi, K & Sakai, H. (2016) Factors on changes of English learning motivation: A content
analysis of motivating and demotivating experiences. JALT Journal, 38(2), November
2016, pp. 119-147.

Kozawa, Y. (2010) Facilitating collaborative dialogues through TBLT. In A. Stewart (ed.),

JALT2010 Conference Proceedings. Tokyo: JALT.

Littlewood, W. (2001) Students’ attitudes to classroom English learning- a cross-cultural study.

Language Teaching Research, 5(1), pp. 3-28.

Littlewood, W. (2007) Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian

classrooms. Language Teaching, Cambridge University Press, 40(3), pp. 243-249.

Long, M. (1985) A role for instruction in second language acquisition: task based language
learning. In Hyltenstam, K. and Pienemann, M. (eds.), Modelling and assessing second
language acquisition. Clevendon: Multilingual Matters.

Matsuno, S., (2018) Japanese learners’ consciousness toward English: when do they begin to
like or dislike English? The Language Teacher, 42(4), pp. 19-23.

McCrostie, J. (2017) As Japan's JET Programme hits its 30s, the jury's still out. The Japan
Times, 3 May 2017 [online]. Accessed from:
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2017/05/03/issues/japans-jet-programme-hits-
30s-jurys-still/ [Accessed on 23 November 2018].

MEXT (2011a) The revisions of the Courses of Study for elementary and secondary
schools [online]. Available from:
http://www.mext.go.jp/en/policy/education/elsec/title02/detail02/__icsFiles/afieldfile/20
11/03/28/1303755_001.pdf [Accessed on 4 October 2018].

MEXT (2011b) MEXT Course of Study, Chapter 9 - Foreign Languages (JHS) [online].
Available from:
http://www.mext.go.jp/component/english/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2011/03/17/1303755_013
.pdf [Accessed on 4 October 2018].

Moser, J. (2005) Using language-focused learning journals on a task-based course. In Edwards,

C. & J. Willis (eds.) Teachers exploring tasks in English language teaching.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 78-87.

Muller, T. (2005) Adding tasks to textbooks for beginner learners. In Edwards, C. & J. Willis
(eds.) Teachers exploring tasks in English language teaching. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan, pp. 69-77.

Adopting TBLT in a Japanese Junior High School EFL Context 19

Nishino, T. (2008) Japanese secondary school teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding
communicative language teaching: An exploratory survey. JALT Journal, 30(1), May
2008, pp. 27-50.

Nunan, D. (1989) Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

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

Prabhu, N. (1987) Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rakuten Research (2016) Survey on English (2016) [online]. Available from:

https://insight.rakuten.co.jp/report/20160826/ [Accessed 5 November 2018]

Rapley, D. (2010) Learning to speak English- Japanese junior high school student views. The
Language Teacher, 34(6), pp. 33-40.

Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001) Approaches and methods in language teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008) Tasks in Second Language Learning. Basingstoke:
Palgrave.

Sato, K. & Takahashi, K. (2008) Curriculum revitalization in a Japanese high school: Teacher-
teacher and teacher-university collaboration. In D. Hayes & J. Sharkey (eds.), Revitalizing
a curriculum for school-age learners. Alexandria: TESOL, Inc. pp. 205-237.

Sato, R. (2010) Reconsidering the Effectiveness and Suitability of PPP and TBLT in the
Japanese EFL Classroom. JALT Journal, 32(2), pp. 189-200.

Seedhouse, P. (1999) Task-based interaction. ELT Journal, 53(3), 1 July 1999, pp. 149-156.

Sheen, R. (1994) A critical analysis of the advocacy of the task‐based syllabus. TESOL
Quarterly, 28(1), pp. 127-151.

Shimada, K. (2017) Textbooks or e-learning? Learners’ preferences and motivations in a

Japanese EFL classroom. The Language Teacher, 41(2), pp. 3-8.

Shintani, N. (2015) The incidental grammar acquisition in focus on form and focus on forms
instruction for young beginner learners. TESOL Quarterly, 49(1), pp. 115-140.

Skehan, P. (1996) A Framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied

Linguistics, 17(1), pp. 38-62.

Skehan, P. (2003) Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, Cambridge University Press,

36(1), pp. 1-14.

Swan, M. (2005) Legislation by hypothesis: The case of task-based instruction. Applied

Linguistics, 26(3), pp. 376-401.

Adopting TBLT in a Japanese Junior High School EFL Context 20

Thomas, M. (2015) A digital shift is not enough. In Thomas, M., Reinders, H. (eds.),
Contemporary task-based language teaching in Asia: Contemporary studies in
linguistics. Bloomsbury Academic, London, pp. 228-243.

Tomlinson, B. (2015) TBLT Materials and Curricula- From Theory to Practice. In Thomas, M.,
Reinders, H. (eds.), Contemporary task-based language teaching in Asia:
Contemporary studies in linguistics. London: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 328-340.

Willis, D. & Willis, J. (2009) Task-based language teaching - Some questions and answers.
The Language Teacher, 33(3), pp. 3-8.

Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow, Essex: Longman.

Yashima, T., Zenuk-Nishide, L. & Shimizu, K. (2004) The influence of attitudes and affect on
willingness to communicate and second language communication. Language Learning,
54(1), pp. 119-152.

Adopting TBLT in a Japanese Junior High School EFL Context 21

6. APPENDICES
6.1 Appendix 1
Third grade student’s initial dialogue for a four-panel comic strip writing task based on

textbook characters.

Adopting TBLT in a Japanese Junior High School EFL Context 22

6.2 Appendix 2
Third grade student’s final dialogue for a four-panel comic strip writing task based on textbook

characters.

Adopting TBLT in a Japanese Junior High School EFL Context 23