Implementing Task-based Approach in Primary School ELT in Mainland China PhD candidate: Ellen Yuefeng Zhang Supervisors: Dr. David Bunton & Dr. Bob Adamson Faculty of Education, the University of Hong Kong

 Adopting TBA in the ELCS in 2001  Limited study of TBA in EFL contexts 1. Some studies on TBA implementation in Hong Kong (Carless 2001; Lee 2002; Davison & Adamson 2003; Tong et. al. 2000; Tong 2005) 2. Few studies on TBA practices in mainland China (Zhang 2002) Background  The failure of CLT innovation (Anderson, 1993; Burnaby & Sun, 1989; Chen, 1988; Cortazzi & Jin, 1996; Hu, 2002; Hui, 1997; Li, 1984; Liao, 2000; Ng & Tang, 1997; Rao, 1996; Tang & Absalom, 1998; Yu, 1984; Zheng & Adamson, 2003; Zheng, 2005; Zhu, 1992)

(Johnson 1989; Marsh & Wills 2003; Tong et. al. (2000) Research Focus Teachers’ lesson planning Curriculum framework Policy- making Syllabus & material designing Syllabus & Materials training Classroom Implementation Teaching acts Learning acts Students’ learning Intended curriculum Teachers’ lesson planning Teaching acts

Defining tasks A task is an activity with  a communicative purpose  a non-linguistic product;  a cognitive process;  authentic use of language; and  a primary focus on meaning. (Breen 1987; Bygate 2001;Ellis 2003; Long 1985; Nunan 1989; Richards et. al. 1992; Skehan 1998; Willis 1996)

Research Questions  How do mainland primary school English teachers enact TBA in their classroom teaching?  What are the main factors affecting the implementation of TBA in the ELT in mainland primary schools?

Forms of TBA Use of tasks Meaning-focused Student-centred Contextualized Non-use of tasks Form-focused Teacher-centred Uncontextualized Weak for TBA Medium form TBA Strong form TBA (Skehan 1998; Tong et. al. 2000; Tong 2005) Intended curriculu m

Weak-form TBA Strong-form TBA Objectives Contents Materials Activities Assessment Grammar teaching Medium of instruction Teacher & student roles Adapted from Skehan (1996, 1998) The implementation of TBA

Conceptual Framework Conceptual Framework (Ellis, 2003; Fullan, 1982; Morris, 1996; Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971) Macro-context Micro-context Teacher’s implementation Teacher’s and students’ factors Attributes of innovation

Mixed Method Research Design  Quantitative approach questionnaire (124 teachers)  Qualitative approach observation (3 teachers) interviews document analysis

Details of case studies FannyGavinHelen Age SchoolDistrict -levelCity -levelProvince -level School locationDistrict ADistrict BDistrict A Work experience1.5 years7 years15 years No. of classes341 Class size49 38 No. of lessons/ week No. of lessons observed 10 No. of interviews343 Duration of studyMarch 2004May 2004April 2004

Features of TBA practice FannyGavin Helen  Aim at teaching / learning linguistic forms  Use form-focused materials with a few tasks  Use mainly form-focused activities, partly tasks to teach and assess  Teacher dominates classroom interaction  Speak mainly Chinese  Much deductive grammar teaching  Aim at teaching / learning linguistic forms  Use form-focused materials with a few tasks  Use mainly form-focused activities, partly tasks to teach and assess  Teacher dominates classroom interaction  Speak Chinese & English  Some deductive grammar teaching  Aim at teaching / learning linguistic forms and communication  Use form-focused materials with many tasks  Use mainly tasks, partly form- focused activities to teach and assess  Students dominate classroom interaction  Speak mainly English  Much inductive grammar teaching form-focused teacher-dominated, grammar-based form-focused teacher-dominated textbook-centred meaning-focused student-centred real-life-related Helen  Aim at teaching / learning linguistic forms and communication  Use form-focused materials with many tasks  Use mainly tasks, partly form- focused activities to teach and assess  Students dominate classroom interaction  Speak mainly English  Much inductive grammar teaching meaning-focused student-centred real-life-related

Use of tasks Meaning-focused Student-centred Contextualized Non-use of tasks Form-focused Teacher-centred Uncontextualized Weak for TBA Medium form TBA Strong form TBA Forms of TBA Case of Fanny Case of Gavin Case of Helen

Factors Confusing Chinese translation Compatibility Relative advantages Time-consuming design Demand on teachers’ abilities Progressive ideas Limited dissemination Lack of task-based resources No English-speaking environment Lack of support to school projects Implementation of TBA Interpretation of ELT innovation Limited understanding of TBA Perceptions of students Foci of professional development Work experience Time limit Preference of memorization- based strategy Capacity of learning English Purpose of going abroad No school effort to adopt TBA Lack of support to ELT innovations Class size Limited periods of teaching Attributes of TBA Student factors Teacher factors Macro-contextual factors Micro-contextual factors

Conclusion Teacher implementation Top Down TBA No school effort

Contributions  Develop top-down curriculum development framework  Enrich data of TBA learning in EFL context  Provide insight of teacher professionalism  Enhance understanding of curriculum innovation in PRC

Curriculum framework Policy- making Syllabus & material designing Syllabus & materials training school’s decision making curriculum projects Teacher’s lesson planning teaching acts learning acts Students’ learning School Filter school filter Intended curriculum Implemented curriculum Top Down

Tends to create noise and bad discipline (Carless 2000) A high demand on teachers and students (Willis 1996) Big class sizes (Carless 2001) Limited time to use English in class (Ellis 2003) A lack of an English-speaking environment (Cheng 2004) Cultural appropriateness: Teacher roles (Carless 2000) TBA in EFL Contexts

English proficiency ELT abilities Pre-service training In-service training The professional development of primary school English teachers

Curriculum development in PRC  The process of decentralization (Lai Auyeung 1989)  The complexity of curriculum development (Adamson & Davison, 2003; Osborn et al., 2000; Tong et al., 2000; Tong 2005)  Curriculum implementation is a contextualized process (Arkoudis 2001)  The central role of teachers in curriculum innovation (Stenhous 1975; Fullan 2001; Kelly 2004; Osborn et. al. 2000; Tong 2005 )  Curriculum change involved both classroom changes and teacher professional development (Hargreaves 2001: Tong 2005)

Longitudinal studies with wider choice of samples Studies as the curriculum innovation moves on Further studies in other contexts Involvement of other stakeholders Implications for further study