Research On Willis's Framework For TBLT

Middle School English Curriculum Standard for Compulsory Education (Experimental Draft), sequenced from the elementary to secondary schools, not only sets out the goals and objectives but strongly recommends the task-based approach in English teaching as well. As a leaner-centered approach, the task-based approach shows two major advantages: a) the language skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing are taught in an interconnected way; and b) real purposes, interactions and the negotiation of meaning are involved. Nevertheless, the task-based approach does not have only one fixed model in classroom teaching. Various models have been put forward in the past 25 years, but it is Willis's framework that is considered the most practical and is widely adopted and practiced in classroom teaching.This paper makes a detailed analysis of and comments on Willis's framework for task-based teaching and learning. Willis's framework is based on the four conditions for language learning: exposure, language use, motivation and instruction. It contains three phases: the pre-task phase, the task cycle and language focus. In the pre-task phase, the teacher presents an introduction to the topic, helps students recall useful words and phrases and learn the new words that will be of help for task completion, and gives task instructions. The task cycle has three components: task, planning and report. In the task stage, students use whatever language they have learned to perform the task and to gain fluency and confidence. The planning stage gives students time and help which they need in preparation for the report. The report stage offers students an opportunity to improve their language and to achieve language accuracy and fluency. Language focus includes analysis and practice activities, which shift the students'attention from meaning to language forms and use.Willis's framework has two main features. First, it is rigid in the process of carrying out task-based teaching. With clearly defined phases and steps within each phase, it is an ideal framework for the teachers who want to try task-based language teaching. Second, it is flexible as the three phases within the framework can be changed according to the needs and backgrounds of students. Therefore, in comparison with the frameworks suggested by Prabhu, Skehan, Ellis and Nunan, Willis's framework is sure to stand out. The present study also aims to investigate whether certain revisions of Willis's framework may lead to better production of language from students in terms of language fluency and accuracy, which can make Willis's framework more suitable for the Chinese junior high school context. Specifically four questions are addressed:1. Is pre-task planning in the pre-task phase a necessary step in the whole process of task based teaching?2. Does teacher-led pre-task planning have more positive influence on students'language fluency and accuracy than no-focus pre-task planning instruction?3. Does the planning stage in the task cycle serve an important function as Willis describes?4. Should the teacher give students formal instruction on the target structures in analysis activities of language focus rather than leave the students to work out the language features alone through their own exploration of the text and the teacher plays the role only as an organizer as Willis requires?The present study used four experiments to study the effects of pre-task planning, teacher-led pre-task planning and the planning stage on the students'language fluency and accuracy and the role of the teacher's formal instruction in analysis activities in order for the students to master the new target structures from the text. The subjects for all four experiments were 62 students from two parallel classes in Grade Eight, Shanghai Huimin Middle School with one class assigned to experimental class (EC) and the other comparison class (CC).Experiment 1 used two oral tasks and focused on the effect of pre-task planning in the pre-task phase; Experiment 2 used two oral tasks and investigated the influence of teacher-led pre-task planning on the students'language fluency and accuracy in the task stage; Experiment 3 used two oral tasks and one written task and focused on the role of the planning stage in the task cycle; and Experiment 4 used three quizzes to investigate the importance of the teacher's formal instruction in analysis activities. The statistic technique of independent t-test was used to compare and analyze the data from both classes. The major findings of this study are summarized as follows:1. The results of two oral tasks in Experiment 1 showed there was no significant difference in language accuracy between EC and CC, but statistical significance in language fluency could be found. It can be concluded that although pre-task planning may not directly result in an increase in language accuracy, it is certain to positively influence fluency.2. The divergent results of two tasks appeared in Experiment 2. The results of the first oral task (teacher-led pre-task planning focused on content) showed no significant difference in fluency and accuracy between EC (with teacher-led pre-task planning) and CC (without it). However, the results of the second oral task (teacher-led pre-task planning focused on target structures since the task was form-focused) showed the statistical significance in pauses (a measure of fluency) and the students from EC performed much better although there was no significant difference in accuracy. The divergent results of two tasks indicate that teacher-led pre-task planning may produce no effects on fluency and accuracy when it is on content but may positively influence the students when it is on the target structures because the task itself is form-focused.3. The results of two oral tasks and one written task in Experiment 3 showed no significant difference in language accuracy and fluency between EC and CC, which indicates that the planning stage did not function as well as it should have. The possible reasons why the planning stage failed to work has been suggested.4. The result of Quiz 1 (for analysis activity 1 with no new target structures) in Experiment 4 showed no significant difference between the quiz performance of the EC (with teacher's formal instruction on the target structures) and CC (doing analysis alone), but the results of Quiz 2 and Quiz 3 (for analysis activities 2 and 3 with the new target structures) showed statistical significance. Experiment 4 reveals that Willis's idea of how students should do analysis activities works only when there are no new target structures in the texts, but with the new target structures, teacher's formal instruction plays a role.Based on the research findings of this study, some revisions can be made to Willis's framework for task-based teaching and learning in order to make it more suitable for junior high school English teaching:1. In the pre-task phase, the teacher should allow several minutes for pre-task planning before students start to do the task. He/She needs to review the structures if the task is form-focused.2. In the task cycle, the planning stage can be safely removed since it exerts no positive effect on fluency and accuracy of the students'language production in report.3. In language focus, the teacher should give the formal instruction on the new target structures rather than leave the students to do the analysis activity alone but without the new structures, this step can be jumped over.This study has pedagogical implications. This study is in support of Willis's framework for task-based language teaching. It is confirmed in this study that her framework is the best designed and the most practical. This research proposes some revisions of Willis's framework and tries to make it more suitable for junior high school English teaching and help students to achieve language fluency and accuracy and master the target structures much better.