How to Teach Grammar to Adult ESP Learners at Technical University More Communicatively: Task-Based Approach

I. Lytovchenko; Y. Lavrysh; V. Lukianenko; O. Ogienko

doi:10.4995/muse.2020.12419

Authors

I. Lytovchenko National Technical University of Ukraine “Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute” https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8578-3985
Y. Lavrysh National Technical University of Ukraine “Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute” https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7713-120X
V. Lukianenko National Technical University of Ukraine “Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute” https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3748-2616
O. Ogienko A. S. Makarenko Sumy State Pedagogical University https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3089-6288

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.4995/muse.2020.12419

Keywords:

PPP approach, TBL, ESP grammar instruction, adult learner, university

Abstract

The article is devoted to comparison of the effectiveness of grammar acquisition by adult learners in two types of instruction – based on the traditional PPP (Presentation, Practice, Production) approach and TBL (Task-Based Learning) approach – in ESP university classes. We conducted a qualitative research in which we tried to incorporate grammar instruction in communicative language teaching and for that purpose selected two groups of students (the PPP group and the TBL group). They were taught five topics, each with a focus on particular grammar items. The comparison of the results we obtained showed that students’ achievement in the TBL group increased more substantially than in the PPP group. Also, the majority of students in the TBL group liked learning grammar at the point of need, which we consider particularly important, since it stimulated their motivation and contributed to the acquisition of grammatical structures. When considering the positive aspects of our experience of using TBL and task-based grammar learning in particular, we should first of all point out its learner-centeredness which provides a number of advantages in teaching adult students: the focus on real communication, addressing the students’ needs by putting them into authentic communicative situations, encouragement of students’ responsibility for their own learning, exposure of students to a wide variety of language, including grammar, ability to motivate students.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

I. Lytovchenko, National Technical University of Ukraine “Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute”

Doctor of Science in Education, professor of Department of English for Specific Purposes of Faculty of Linguistics

Y. Lavrysh, National Technical University of Ukraine “Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute”

PhD, associate professor of Department of English for Specific Purposes of Faculty of Linguistics

V. Lukianenko, National Technical University of Ukraine “Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute”

PhD (Psychology), Associate Professor of Department of English for Specific Purposes

O. Ogienko, A. S. Makarenko Sumy State Pedagogical University

Doctor of ScienceinEducation, Professor of Department of Pedagogy

References

Bygate, M. (2013). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks, second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 23–48). London; New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315838267

Chen, I-C. (2018). Incorporating task-based learning in an extensive reading programme. ELT Journal, 72(4), 405–414. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccy008.

Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 221-246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00231.x.

Ellis, R. (2014). Taking the critics to task: the case for task-based teaching. In Proceedings of the Sixth CLS International Conference CLaSIC “Knowledge, Skills and Competencies in Foreign Language Education”, Singapore, December 4-6, 2014. Retrieved May 1, 2019, from https://www.fas.nus.edu.sg/cls/CLaSIC/clasic2014/proceeding.htm.

Ellis, R. (2015a). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (2015b). The importance of focus on form in communicative language teaching. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.460611.

Ellis, R. (2016). Focus on form: a critical review. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 405–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816628627.

Ellis, R. (2018). Reflections on task-based language teaching. Bristol; Blue Ridge Summit, PA: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/ELLIS0131.

Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H. and Loewen, S. (2001). Preemptive Focus on Form in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35(3), 407–432.

Esfandiari, M. (2018). Task-based learning applied: Satisfactory grammar coverage. International Journal of English and Cultural Studies, 1(1), 68 – 73. https://doi.org/10.11114/ijecs.v1i1.3104.

Esfandiari, M. (2018). Task-based learning applied: satisfactory grammar coverage. International Journal of English and Cultural Studies, 1(1), 68 – 73. https://doi.org/10.11114/ijecs.v1i1.3104.

Global Talent Bridge. (2018). Building opportunities for skilled immigrants: a toolkit for ESL practitioners. Retrieved May 12, 2018, from www.globaltalentbridge.org

Gómez-Ejerique, C., & López-Cantos, F. (2019). Application of innovative teaching-learning methodologies in the classroom. Coaching, flipped classroom and gamification. A case study of success. Multidisciplinary Journal for Education, Social and Technological Sciences, 6(1), 46 – 70. https://doi.org/10.4995/muse.2019.9959.

Herrin, J.M. (2009). Six (6) Tasks for Task-based Learning (TBL). Workshop, USA.

Knapp, K., and Seidlhofer, B. (2009). Handbook of foreign language communication and learning. Gottingen: Walter de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214246

Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: from pedagogy to andragogy. Chicago: Associated Press Follett Publishing Company.

Knowles, M. S. (1990). The adult learner: a neglected species. Houston, London, Paris, Zurich, Tokyo: Gulf Publishing Company.

Kuzminska, N., Stavytska, I., Lukianenko, V. & Lygina, O. (2019). Application of CLIL methodology in teaching economic disciplines at university. Advanced Education, 11, 112–117. https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.167150.

La Shun L. Carroll (2017). Theoretical Biomimetics: A biological design-driven concept for creative problem-solving as applied to the optimal sequencing of active learning techniques in educational theory. Multidisciplinary Journal for Education, Social and Technological Sciences, 4(2), 80 – 96. https://doi.org/10.4995/muse.2017.7078.

Lavrysh, Y. (2016). Peer and self-assessment at ESP classes: case study. Advanced Education, 6, 60 – 68. https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.85351.

Lavrysh, Y. and Lytovchenko, I. (2019). The case of education for sustainable development approaches implementation at English language classes at the technical university in Ukraine. Pedagogy, 91(5), 736 – 749.

Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: a meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x

Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.

Long, M., and Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly 26(1): 27–56. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587368.

Lyster R., Kazuya S., and Masatoshi S. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444812000365.

Lytovchenko, I. (2009). How to make upper-level university classes more interactive. English Teaching Forum, 47(2), 24-29.

Lytovchenko, I. (2016). Role of adult learning theories in the development of corporate training in the USA. Future Human Image, 3(6), 67–80.

Lytovchenko, I., Ogienko, O., Sbruieva, A., and Sotska, H. (2018). Teaching English for specific purposes to adult learners at university: methods that work. Advanced Education, 10, 69 – 75. https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.149741.

Merriam, S. B. (1993). An update on adult learning theory. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Merriam, S. B., and Caffarella, R. S. (1999). Learning in adulthood: a comprehensive guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Nunan, D. (1998). Teaching grammar in context. ELT Journal, 52(2), 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/52.2.101

Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching: a comprehensively revised edition of designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667336

Prabhu, N. S. (1999). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Recatalá, D. (2016). Using Active Learning Methodologies in Physical Chemistry in CLIL Contexts. Multidisciplinary Journal for Education, Social and Technological Sciences, 3(1), 71 – 83. https://doi.org/10.4995/muse.2016.3696

Sheen, R. (2003). Focus on form – a myth in the making? ELT Journal, 57(3), 225–233. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/57.3.225.

Sheen, Y.H. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings, Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 263–300. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168804lr146oa

Sheppard, C. (2006). The effects of instruction directed at the gaps second language learners noticed in their oral production. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.

Swan, M. (2005). Legislation by hypothesis: the case of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 376–401. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami013

Viriya, C. (2018). Using Task-Based Learning with Students of Academic English. Arab World English Journal, 9(4), 337–346. https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol9no4.25.

World Learning. (2019). Module 4 Summary. In “Teaching Grammar Communicatively” [MOOC].