The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics

Current Issue

Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 21

[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 21, No. 0, pp.752-770
Abbreviation: KASELL
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Received 08 Jul 2021 Revised 20 Aug 2021 Accepted 27 Aug 2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.21..202108.752

과제기반 교수법에서의 영문법 교육에 대한 오해와 이해: 의미-형태 초점 기법과 과제 디자인을 통한 영문법 교육
이진화
중앙대

Misunderstandings and understandings of English grammar instruction in task-based language teaching: English grammar instruction via focus on form and task design
Jin-Hwa Lee
Professor, Department of English Education, Chung-Ang University (jinhlee@cau.ac.kr)

© 2021 KASELL All rights reserved
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

This study attempted to clarify misunderstandings about grammar instruction in task-based language teaching (TBLT) by carefully examining tenets of TBLT and identifying sources of confusion. Arguing that focus on form which draws learners’ attention to language form in addition to meaning is central to TBLT, this study illustrated how grammar instruction can be integrated into the design and implementation of TBLT with concrete examples. In addition, this study introduced a cognitive approach to TBLT which claims that task design can lead to changes in learners’ attentional allocation and subsequent L2 performance. Based on the review of recent research on the effects of task characteristics on L2 language production, this study suggested ways to manipulate task characteristics to elicit desired English grammar learning.


Keywords: task-based language teaching (TBLT), English grammar instruction, focus on form, task-supported language teaching, task design

References
1. 김지훈·김정렬(Kim, J. and J.-r. Kim). 2019. 형태초점 영어수업의 암시적 및 명시적 기법의 효과 비교를 위한 메타분석(A meta-analysis of explicit vs. implicit focus-on-form English instructional effects). ≪교원교육≫(Korean Journal of Teacher Education) 35-2, 73-96.
2. 성기완·김혜영·맹은경·안태연·이상민(Sung, K.. H. Kim, U. Maeng, T. Ahn and S. Lee). 2019.『영어교과 교재 연구와 지도법(Curriculum, Materials, & Instruction for EFL Teachers)』. 파주: 종이와 나무(Paju: Paper and tree).
3. 이진화(Lee, J.-H.). 2008. 과제기반 교수법과 교육 영문법(Task-based language teaching and educational English grammar). 양현권·정영국 편(Yang, H. and Y. Jeong, eds.),『교육 영문법의 이해(Understanding Educational English Grammar)』, 91-111. 서울: 한국문화사(Seoul: Hankookmunhwasa).
4. Andersen, R. and Y. Shirai. 1994. Discourse motivations for some cognitive acquisition principles. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16, 133-156.
5. Bygate, M. 2016. Sources, developments and directions of task-based language teaching. The Language Learning Journal 44(4), 381-400.
6. Carless, D. 2009. Revisiting the TBLT versus P-P-P debate: Voices from Hong Kong. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching 19, 49-66.
7. Doughty, C. and J. Williams. 1998. Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C. Doughty and J. Williams, eds., Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition, 197-261. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8. East, M. 2017. Research into practice: The task-based approach to instructed second language acquisition. Language Teaching 50(3), 412-424.
9. Ellis, R. 2000. Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research 4(3), 193-220.
10. Ellis, R. 2003. Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11. Ellis, R. 2009. Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 19(3), 221-246.
12. Hyun, J.-E. and J.-H. Lee. 2018. The effects of task complexity and working memory on Korean adult learners’ English speaking performance. English Teaching 73(1), 115-134.
13. Kang, S. and J.-H. Lee. 2019. Are two heads always better than one? The effects of collaborative planning on L2 writing in relation to task complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing 45, 61-72.
14. Kim, Y. S. 2011. The effect of cognitive task complexity on a language learner’s written performance with respect to accuracy, complexity, and fluency. Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics 27(2), 285-313.
15. Loewen, S. 2015. Introduction to Instructed Second Language Acquisition. New York: Routledge.
16. Long, M. H. 1985. A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based teaching. In K. Hyltenstam and M. Pienemann, eds., Modeling and Assessing Second Language Development, 77-99. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
17. Long, M. H. 1991. Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. Foreign Language Research in Cross-cultural Perspective 2(1), 39-52.
18. Long, M. H. 2000. Focus on form in task-based language teaching. In R. Lambert and E. Shohamy, eds., Language Policy and Pedagogy: Essays in Honor of Ronald Walton, 179-192. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
19. Long, M. H. 2007. Recasts in SLA: The story so far. In M. H. Long, ed., Problems in SLA, 75-116. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
20. Long, M. H. 2009. Methodological principles in language teaching. In M. H. Long and C. J. Doughty, eds., Handbook of Language Teaching, 373-394. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
21. Long, M. H. 2015. Second Language Acquisition and Task-based Language Teaching. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
22. Long, M. H. 2016. In defense of tasks and TBLT: Nonissues and real issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 26, 5-33.
23. Long, M. H. and G. Crookes. 1992. Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly 26, 27-56.
24. Long, M. H. and P. Robinson. 1998. Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty and J. Williams, eds., Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition, 15-41. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25. Lyster, R. 2004. Differential effects of prompts and recast in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26, 399-432.
26. Oh, M. and H. Lee. 2012. The effects of task complexity and task condition on learner language. Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics 28(4), 39-71.
27. Robinson, P. 2001. Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for investigating task influences on SLA. In P. Robinson, ed., Cognition and Second Language Instruction, 298-318. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28. Robinson, P. 2005. Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: A review of studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 43, 1-32.
29. Robinson, P. 2011. Second language task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In P. Robinson, ed., Second Language Task Complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of Language Learning and Performance, 3-38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
30. Robinson, P., T. Cadierno and Y. Shirai. 2009. Time and motion: Measuring the effects of the conceptual demands of tasks on second language speech production. Applied Linguistics 30, 533-554.
31. Schmidt, R. 1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11, 206–226.
32. Skehan, P. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
33. Song, J.-Y. and J.-H. Lee. 2015. The effects of planning time and the number of elements on EFL learners’ speaking performance. Modern English Education 16(1), 59-80.
34. Swan, M. 2005. Legislation by hypothesis: The case of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics 26(3), 376–401.
35. Wilkins, D. A. 1976. Notional Syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
36. Willis, J. 1996. A Framework for Task-based Learning. Harlow: Longman.